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
  #121  
Old 02-07-2011, 12:47 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post
Added: I notice that Stephanie tends to take disagreements personally - at least in my comments she has done that several times.
I'm not sure what else you are referring to, but I did not take the exchange here "personally." I did note that your response seemed unrelated to my post, but that's not the same thing. I bothered noting that in part because I wanted to focus on the actual ideas expressed and not whatever it was that you were responding to (i.e., the whole imaginary thing about assuming there was a perfect democratic option or that people always act the same, no matter what, or whatever).
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-07-2011, 12:56 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
History didn't start ten years ago, and it hasn't been limited to that part of the world.
Precisely. There's also the fact that we did not go into either Afghanistan or Iraq to establish democracy. We went into Afghanistan because we were attacked and the attackers were using the Taliban-run country as a base of operations and, in addition, because we saw ourselves as in part responsible for the Taliban take-over, given the fact that when we involved ourself in the country before it was with the intention only of preventing Soviet control and we in fact failed to make any ongoing investment in favor of democracy.

(And again, contrary to Ray's assumption, I am not suggesting that we had an option to support and install a perfect democracy in Afghanistan before. I think there are huge problems with doing that, due to culture and history and the lack of stability, not because Muslims are supposedly constituationally incapable of democracy or whatever his working theory is.)

Similarly, with Iraq, we have had a variety of involvements with the country over time, so it makes little sense to focus only on the most recent. But even if you do, our reason for going in was due to supposed WMD, not some claim that we would establish democracy. (I do think the latter was a hope and motivating reason for the invasion, but that supports rather than contradicts my argument, as I said the 9/11 led to a reconsideration of our past policy and the desire to find a way out. The neo con theory seemed to be that if we were able to establish a friendly democratic government in the Middle East, that would be one way out. My problem with that idea -- apart from it not meeting any "just war" basis for an invasion of another country -- is that it sounds more like wishful thinking than sensible foreign policy.)
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-07-2011, 12:59 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I am wondering if you made a mistake when you said this, The argument that the mandate is not justified by the Commerce Clause merely means that it's not within the powers given to the states. Shouldn't that be not within the powers given to the the Congress ? Or if you look at the constitution as states giving power to the Federal government given by the states?
Yes, as I think was clear from the remainder of the post and the discussion, I wrote "states" when I meant "Congress."

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence -- the Constitution is not power given by the states to the federal government. It's given by We the People.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:15 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I am copying both posts as an example to those who just can't understand the conservative mindset when it comes to catagorizing or labeling liberals. It's unacceptable to you to be put in some kind of intellectual box. But it's really OK for popcornkarate to label Ray's views as racist and not worth considering. Why do I say it's OK? Because none of you has the balls to call him or any of your colleagues on it, ever.
I'm reasonably sure you see the difference, but I'll point it out anyway.

popcorn karate is responding to Ray's actual posts. If Ray thinks he is misunderstanding, Ray is free to try to correct him. Ray has certainly suggested that he thinks there is something different about Arabs when it comes to democracy, a point that I found a bit odd given that we were talking about US policy generally (and support for authoritarian governments in particular) that most certainly is not limited to Arab authoritarian governments (or even Middle Eastern or Muslim ones, as I'm sure the Iranians, not to mention the Pakistanis and Afghanis and so on, would prefer not to be lumped in as Arab).

Ray, however, is not responding to actual opinions expressed by liberals here when doing what Brendan (and I) have called him on. He's saying that he assumes that liberals think something silly or extreme or even something else taken from outside the board and then assuming that's the opinion posters here (posters he knows very little of, including how "liberal" people are, really) are expressing. He then proceeds to argue against what is inherently a straw man, rather than trying to understand the actual opinions here.

If he did the latter and misunderstood, even misunderstood in a way that seemed unjustified, that would be one thing, but he's been upfront about the fact that he's making assumptions (rather silly-sounding assumptions, IMO) about what "liberals" must think. I doubt anyone here actually holds the views that Ray seems to want to argue against, but in any case the notion of some "liberals" foreign policy view is just odd in context, when the people usually classified as liberals on this board don't agree on foreign policy questions in various respects.

(Similarly, I don't talk about "conservative" foreign policy views or assume that conservatives or rightwingers more generally won't share my basic goals or analyses of foreign policy problems. Don't know why they wouldn't.)

And to make a broader point with all this, I think one of the problems with this board lately is that there seems to be a desire for clubbiness among some of the right of center posters that manifests in an "us against them" posting style and desire to break down all questions into the most boring and simplistic "liberals think this, conservatives think this" way of posting. I suppose that might be fun in giving one a team to root for (or to mourn for lost members of, such as the occasional "bring back Whatfur" efforts), but it's not terribly conducive to a well-working discussion board or interesting conversation. I see lots of differences between and among the liberals here, as well as between and among the conservatives. I don't see why anyone would want to pretend we were in DenvilleSteve's America, where people are first and foremost culturally Democratic or culturally Republican (his version of hypenated American). Surely the rest of us can acknowledge that as foolish, as foolish as the desire for a break-up of the USA.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:20 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
I have a lot of problems with Huckabee. First, he's a flake, who takes some odd positions on a lot of issues (like pardoning criminals because they've come to Jesus) and then justifying it with some Biblical quotation. Secondly, just like McCain who doesn't really give a damn about anything except Defense and Foreign policy, Huckabee doesn't seem to truly care about anything except Social issues.

Like McCain, Huckabee seems to be guided by political expediency on everything outside his core beliefs. One day he's refusing to sign a "No new taxes pledge" 'cause its "irresponsible", then he takes some heat, and suddenly he wants to get rid of the Income tax and the IRS and substitute a VAT Tax! One day he wants to get rid of the Cuban embargo, then he takes some political heat, and flip-flops and says he only was for lifting because it would help Arkansas Rice farmers. Same with illegal immigration. One day he's for open borders and Amnesty and anyone who disagrees is a "racist" and hates Jesus (He weirdly quotes the "Good Samaritan Story"), then he takes political heat, and suddenly he's in favor of building a "goddamn fence" (Mccain's description)" and draconian border enforcement.

So despite his talking a good game, I don't have the slightest idea what he'd do as President.
Okay, I suppose I mostly agree with you on Huckabee. (I think the same is true for Palin, who you like, but perhaps that's because Huckabee has been more obvious on some of your hot buttons, like immigration and crime. I was thinking too narrowly of economics and social issues.)

(I deleted the last sentence, with which I obviously do not agree, since I suppose you are insistent upon refusing to see that even liberals can be people of good faith more similar to you than you'd like to admit. Easier to justify what you don't like about those on your side if the opposition is demonized.)
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-07-2011, 11:43 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I'm reasonably sure you see the difference, but I'll point it out anyway.

popcorn karate is responding to Ray's actual posts. If Ray thinks he is misunderstanding, Ray is free to try to correct him. Ray has certainly suggested that he thinks there is something different about Arabs when it comes to democracy, a point that I found a bit odd given that we were talking about US policy generally (and support for authoritarian governments in particular) that most certainly is not limited to Arab authoritarian governments (or even Middle Eastern or Muslim ones, as I'm sure the Iranians, not to mention the Pakistanis and Afghanis and so on, would prefer not to be lumped in as Arab).

Ray, however, is not responding to actual opinions expressed by liberals here when doing what Brendan (and I) have called him on. He's saying that he assumes that liberals think something silly or extreme or even something else taken from outside the board and then assuming that's the opinion posters here (posters he knows very little of, including how "liberal" people are, really) are expressing. He then proceeds to argue against what is inherently a straw man, rather than trying to understand the actual opinions here.

If he did the latter and misunderstood, even misunderstood in a way that seemed unjustified, that would be one thing, but he's been upfront about the fact that he's making assumptions (rather silly-sounding assumptions, IMO) about what "liberals" must think. I doubt anyone here actually holds the views that Ray seems to want to argue against, but in any case the notion of some "liberals" foreign policy view is just odd in context, when the people usually classified as liberals on this board don't agree on foreign policy questions in various respects.

(Similarly, I don't talk about "conservative" foreign policy views or assume that conservatives or rightwingers more generally won't share my basic goals or analyses of foreign policy problems. Don't know why they wouldn't.)

And to make a broader point with all this, I think one of the problems with this board lately is that there seems to be a desire for clubbiness among some of the right of center posters that manifests in an "us against them" posting style and desire to break down all questions into the most boring and simplistic "liberals think this, conservatives think this" way of posting. I suppose that might be fun in giving one a team to root for (or to mourn for lost members of, such as the occasional "bring back Whatfur" efforts), but it's not terribly conducive to a well-working discussion board or interesting conversation. I see lots of differences between and among the liberals here, as well as between and among the conservatives. I don't see why anyone would want to pretend we were in DenvilleSteve's America, where people are first and foremost culturally Democratic or culturally Republican (his version of hypenated American). Surely the rest of us can acknowledge that as foolish, as foolish as the desire for a break-up of the USA.
Good answer.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-07-2011, 11:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
(I deleted the last sentence, with which I obviously do not agree, since I suppose you are insistent upon refusing to see that even liberals can be people of good faith more similar to you than you'd like to admit. Easier to justify what you don't like about those on your side if the opposition is demonized.)
The thing worth mentioning about rc's last sentence, though, is the hilarity concerning Alinsky!!!1!

Yes, that again.

I doubt one liberal in a hundred -- under sixty, especially -- ever even heard of that name before the wingnuts began trotting it out as one of their new favorite touchstones when the supposed Chicago-Kenyan radical started looking like he was going to win the election.

See also Frances Fox Piven.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-08-2011, 09:39 AM
operative operative is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,261
Default Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
The thing worth mentioning about rc's last sentence, though, is the hilarity concerning Alinsky!!!1!

Yes, that again.

I doubt one liberal in a hundred -- under sixty, especially -- ever even heard of that name before the wingnuts began trotting it out as one of their new favorite touchstones when the supposed Chicago-Kenyan radical started looking like he was going to win the election.

See also Frances Fox Piven.
Nor had most conservatives heard of the various bogymen you trot out (Koch Brothers!). Your utter lack of self-awareness continues to astound. It's as if you seek to be a self-parody of an angry leftist.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-08-2011, 03:20 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney

Quote:
Originally Posted by operative View Post
Nor had most conservatives heard of the various bogymen you trot out (Koch Brothers!). Your utter lack of self-awareness continues to astound. It's as if you seek to be a self-parody of an angry leftist.
I would say that one big difference is that Koch Bros. have lots of money and power and can make things happen or at least affect things in a way that barely remembered lefty academics can. With more of the media owned by fewer people/entities I think the rich/powerful should just get used to the scrutiny.

Until, of course, they are able to so demonize such scrutiny as unamerican
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-08-2011, 03:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
I would say that one big difference is that Koch Bros. have lots of money and power and can make things happen or at least affect things in a way that barely remembered lefty academics can. With more of the media owned by fewer people/entities I think the rich/powerful should just get used to the scrutiny.

Until, of course, they are able to so demonize such scrutiny as unamerican
Well said.

Another difference: Alinsky was all about organizing the poor to help them get a few crumbs. The Koch Bros and their minions are all about increasing their already swollen share of the pie and conning the mouth-breathers into thinking this is a good thing.

Another: The Koch Bros are alive and kicking. This has not been true in Alinsky's case for, oh, about forty years now.
__________________
Brendan
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 02:08 PM.


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