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 03-25-2011, 04:44 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-25-2011, 05:41 PM
enderud enderud is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Hey Ann, be careful!
I never heard of this guy, Farley, before
but just now
out of curiosity
I went to look at his blog
thus increasing his traffic.
Sorry about that.
(I don't think I'll be going back however)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-25-2011, 05:50 PM
qingl78 qingl78 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 37
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

wow, this is like looking in fun house mirror.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:06 PM
sirfith sirfith is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Default Robert Wright double standard on Unguided Weapons.

I like how Bob objected/is outraged by the use of Unguided Weapons in Libya by Gaddafi's forces.
But he is willing overlook/excuse the use of Unguided Weapons against Israel from Gaza "proportional response".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:17 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Wright is parroting the official propaganda. The oft-repeated claim that Obama saved thousands of lives in Benghazi is wild speculation. Gaddafi forces overran many other cities in the West and didn't engage in Srebrenica style mass slaughter. Consider this: Misurata, roughly same size as Benghazi, has been besieged for weeks with no sign of Gaddafi overrunning it, so why believe that Benghazi was about to fall? We hear that 100 civilians died in Misurata. That's terrible, I agree. But the number happens to match precisely the number of civilians killed by US forces in AfPak in the last four weeks. So why the selective outrage?

Finally on the basis of what exactly is Wright opining that NATO intervention will end up saving lives and not making things worse, when virtually all precedents point to the opposite conclusion?

I will remind him that Srebrenica took place during a No Fly Zone operation. And that Milosevic's real slaughter in Kosovo began after air strikes began, not before. My point is that a half-way measure between nothing and land invasion can in fact give you the worst of all worlds.

In short, any interventionist who doesn't bother to make a rational, historically-grounded case for the likelihood of a better outcome doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. In that sense, Juan Cole, with his juvenile top-10 lists, has become the parody of a neocon lite. Sad to see liberals so desperate for a war they can support.

PS: Not that motives are everything but why are US special forces in Yemen, as we speak, helping a dictator who's already slaughtered hundreds of his own citizens? Oh, Gaddadi dislikes us but Saleh loves us. So that's how humanitarianism works.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:59 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
We hear that 100 civilians died in Misurata. That's terrible, I agree. But the number happens to match precisely the number of civilians killed by US forces in AfPak in the last four weeks. So why the selective outrage?
If Gaddafi were a bit shrewder he would have called his civilian deaths "collateral damage" in his war against anarchists and terrorist thugs who were holding Libyan cities hostage (human shields).

I think he did try to suggest he was on the prowl for Osama bin Laden (just like us in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the past 10 years) and he was waging a War on Drugs (teens on Ectasy), just like us in Mexico, Colombia (with drones, by the way) and Afopiumstan.

Less facetiously, I'd say I agree that the USA in its role of perpetrator and enabler of countless atrocities against civilians, has no serious moral standing here. However, to be fair, it's not a USA mission; it's a UNSC mission in which the USA is participating.

This is also Ann's mistake (and Krauthammer's). She can't wrap her head around the possibility that this isn't All About Obama and "his" coalition.

To de-emphasize the US leadership, however, is not to say that the USA had no choice. We could have voted with Brazil, Germany and India. They all did the right thing.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-25-2011, 07:20 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
This is also Ann's mistake (and Krauthammer's). She can't wrap her head around the possibility that this isn't All About Obama and "his" coalition.

To de-emphasize the US leadership, however, is not to say that the USA had no choice. We could have voted with Brazil, Germany and India. They all did the right thing.
I agree. There is a huge disconnect between coverage of this in Europe and the US. You would think, to listen to Althouse et al., that Obama had launched this little war all by himself and that the outcome depended on the US alone. Another example of American exceptionalism perhaps.

Brazil and India probably did the right thing. Why should they get involved in a minor conflict in North Africa? Germany, however, has seriously annoyed all its European partners.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-25-2011, 07:42 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
Germany, however, has seriously annoyed all its European partners.
Germany is now pissing off everyone for not waging war... Ah, the irony of history.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2011, 05:49 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
Germany is now pissing off everyone for not waging war... Ah, the irony of history.
Ironic, to be sure.

I wish everyone would stop talking about the intervention in Libya as if it were an act of war. Whether you think R2P, le devoir d'ingérence, are justified or not, they are not acts of war according to international law or the UN. France and Britain and the US have insisted that once Gaddafi stops killing civilians, they (now NATO) will desist.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-25-2011, 08:09 PM
dieter dieter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 237
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I agree. There is a huge disconnect between coverage of this in Europe and the US. You would think, to listen to Althouse et al., that Obama had launched this little war all by himself and that the outcome depended on the US alone. Another example of American exceptionalism perhaps.
Exactly my impression as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
Germany, however, has seriously annoyed all its European partners.
I was unaware of that. Any pointers?

The incoherence of the European approach is a good thing though. If Gaddafi wins, the blowback will not hit the entire EU and the flow of oil and other dealings may continue. If he is loses on the other hand, nobody will miss him.

The European argument for the war is more utilitarian (Oil, refugee crisis), rather than humanitarian.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-26-2011, 12:55 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieter View Post
The incoherence of the European approach is a good thing though. If Gaddafi wins, the blowback will not hit the entire EU and the flow of oil and other dealings may continue. If he is loses on the other hand, nobody will miss him.

The European argument for the war is more utilitarian (Oil, refugee crisis), rather than humanitarian.
I do not believe I have ever seen such a refreshingly honest, delightfully cynical defense of the "European approach" to wold affairs. Thank you.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-26-2011, 07:32 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Just being nitpicky here; How are concerns about a refugee crisis not humanitarian? If you're only interested in doing things that help yourself wouldn't it be more convient to just let them die?
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-25-2011, 11:21 PM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I agree. There is a huge disconnect between coverage of this in Europe and the US. You would think, to listen to Althouse et al., that Obama had launched this little war all by himself and that the outcome depended on the US alone. Another example of American exceptionalism perhaps.

Brazil and India probably did the right thing. Why should they get involved in a minor conflict in North Africa? Germany, however, has seriously annoyed all its European partners.
Exactly, all kinds of people acting as if Obama has launched an invasion and occupation of Libya, Bush style. Good Grief!

I'm still trying to figure out what's with Germany. I read Joschka Fischer is furious with the government.

Ann says she's voted for Democrats and Obama. I've only gotten to the first section. I wonder why. With friends like her I'd say he doesn't need enemies. Her attacks aren't the same as leftists complaining that he hasn't accomplished all they hoped, or that he's disappointed them on this or that. I'm disappointed on the Guantanamo issue, but I do recognize the man is neither a magician nor an absolute monarch and can't do whatever he might want, and certainly will never please all leftists. Hopefully, they'll go out and vote for him anyway in the presidential election. The alternative looks bleak to me.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-26-2011, 05:58 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
I'm still trying to figure out what's with Germany. I read Joschka Fischer is furious with the government.
If Europe is ever to have an independent foreign policy (independent of NATO that is), Britain, France and Germany will be its core. I think the French and people like Fischer are angry because they see Germany acting to thwart progress towards a EU that is more than a vast trading block.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-26-2011, 09:25 PM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
If Europe is ever to have an independent foreign policy (independent of NATO that is), Britain, France and Germany will be its core. I think the French and people like Fischer are angry because they see Germany acting to thwart progress towards a EU that is more than a vast trading block.
It seems odd for Germany to position itself against UK, France and the US all at once. This article expresses it as opposing both the EU and the US.

It seems Merkel has political problems and the German people support the resolution but don't want Germany to participate militarily. It might have been better for the government to support the resolution and offer some kind of minimal participation and/or non military support. It might have all been over before anybody started pressuring them for more.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14943352,00.html
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-29-2011, 12:48 AM
jacks_mind jacks_mind is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 42
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

"In short, any interventionist who doesn't bother to make a rational, historically-grounded case for the likelihood of a better outcome doesn't deserve to be taken seriously."

You make it sound as if there was no thought going into this action whatsoever.

Assume for the moment that they had intelligence that showed that 90% of the Libyan Army was ready to defect, that strategic bombing was all that was needed to tip the uprising dramatically in the hands of the rebels. I mean just assume. Do you think that Serbia would be the key to dissuade them? Of course not. Historical precedent is just one part (and arguably the weakest part) of evidence for predictive success. The current facts of the case are what they base action on. There are many reasons they thought this would be a cake walk compared to Bosnia, not the least being that Bosnia was ~200K troops on each side and now we are taking about 10K--big difference.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:22 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Gaddafi is being a choir boy next to "our boys" in Fallujah and Gabi Ashkenazi's mass slaughter in Gaza. Why didn't we bomb ourselves in the first case and IDF headquarters in the second? You know, because humanitarian is what we do.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-25-2011, 07:14 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Gaddafi is being a choir boy next to "our boys" in Fallujah and Gabi Ashkenazi's mass slaughter in Gaza.
And Lebanon in Lebanon Wars I and II. Lebanon I War, you may recall, was named "Operation Peace." That was in the old Orwellian days before we had porn star names for wars (Odyssey Dawn).

Quote:
Why didn't we bomb ourselves in the first case and IDF headquarters in the second? You know, because humanitarian is what we do.
The SC did try to make a statement on the Apartheid regime in Israel, but Obama killed the resolution.

How about just a self-imposed no-fly zone (i.e., disarmament)? We can start by dismantling our nukes and shutting down our military bases in over 150 countries around the world.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-25-2011, 07:33 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
That was in the old Orwellian days before we had porn star names for wars (Odyssey Dawn).
Speaking of Orwellian, why Reagan was not impeached after this SNL-like "skit" tells us all we need to know about Americans' insatiable appetite for steaming crap:

Quote:
President's Address to the Nation, Oct 27, 1993: Two hours ago we released the first photos from Grenada. They included pictures of a warehouse of military equipment - one of three we've uncovered so far. This warehouse contained weapons and ammunition stacked almost to the ceiling, enough to supply thousands of terrorists. Grenada, we were told, was a friendly island paradise for tourism. Well, it wasn't. It was a Soviet-Cuban colony, being readied as a major military bastion to export terror and undermine democracy. We got there just in time.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
Gaddafi is being a choir boy next to "our boys" in Fallujah and Gabi Ashkenazi's mass slaughter in Gaza. Why didn't we bomb ourselves in the first case and IDF headquarters in the second? You know, because humanitarian is what we do.

You mean the way are Marines gave the civilians days to evacuate while giving the insurgents days to wire the homes with explosives? We put ourselves at risk in order to spare innocent lives.

http://wapo.st/e4DkSn
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:30 PM
jeffpeterson jeffpeterson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 63
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Bob's readiness to give Pres. Obama every benefit of every doubt while denying any benefit of any doubt to his predecessor is truly remarkable. At the end of the day, he's a well-read (and, in dialogue with Mickey, sometimes entertaining) hack.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:47 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Ms. Althouse doesn't like an attitude.
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:49 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Bob's horrified concern about the violent rhetoric in Wisconsin.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-25-2011, 07:33 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Hmm. I usually defend Althouse from the nutters on here, but I'd have to push back and say that Obama didn't need to go as far as Bush regarding the explanation for moving Libya for precisely the reasons Bob stated. U.N. approval.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-25-2011, 09:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Hmm. I usually defend Althouse from the nutters on here, but I'd have to push back and say that Obama didn't need to go as far as Bush regarding the explanation for moving Libya for precisely the reasons Bob stated. U.N. approval.
Would you care to name one or two of the "nutters" and try to make the case that a class of opinions in regard to AA has no merit, or are you content merely to toss empty insults into the void?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-25-2011, 10:59 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

At what point in time did we surrender our sovereignty to the UN? The Office is still the President of the United States not Quiescent Servant of the UN.

Last edited by piscivorous; 03-25-2011 at 11:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-25-2011, 11:28 PM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
At what point in time did we surrender our sovereignty to the UN? The Office is still the President of the United States not Quiescent Servant of the UN.
I don't know about surrendering sovereignty. But if the question were whether it is sometimes appropriate for there to be a broad coalition behind a foreign intervention, I would say yes. I think all the more so in cases in which the threat is not directed at any specific country, or at least is just a general human rights issue. I think a case can be made for intervening in Libya, and that it be done by international forces.

A separate case can be made that explicitly not "going it alone" is in American interests as well. You know, there are just a lot of cases to be made all around!
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-26-2011, 12:43 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

You may like the mix, of President Obama's coalition, better than the the one that President Bush put together but until the numbers reach 36 direct support and another 7 providing indirect support I would challenge your description of it as "broad". Seems to me it is mostly those countries that get their oil from Libya and suffer from the influx of refuges from that area with the cover of Qatar. So it appears that we have once again been hoodwinked, by the Europeans, into doing for them that which they can't do themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-26-2011, 12:11 AM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
At what point in time did we surrender our sovereignty to the UN? The Office is still the President of the United States not Quiescent Servant of the UN.
The US didn't have to support the resolution, or participate. It could have even used its veto against it. Or it could have just attacked Lybia all by itself, or with some coalition, illegally. Nobody could stop it. I don't see the sovereignty issue.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-26-2011, 01:01 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

You are correct in so far as the listing of your options, and had we instituted the the no-fly zone and interdiction campaign in week two, before Qaddafi regained the momentum, we might not be looking at what is now more than likely to be a prolonged engagement. Yes it will mostly be from 20,000 feet so odds are there will be few American combat causalities but none the less it is still a shooting war which will require support from both the political class and the populace. You start from behind if you don't get them on board from the start. As Iraq amply demonstrates support for military action is more likely to go down than up even with few US causalities.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-25-2011, 08:21 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Ann protests that The Left places her as a right winger, and defends her neutral-independent stance. However, immediately after she proceeds to defend every right wing talking point for Tea Party activism, and against Obama and the decision to join the rest of the countries that are operating under the UNSC resolution. Perhaps that's why The Left sees her for what she shows she is.

I think that Ann has lost perspective of where she is in the political/ ideological spectrum. Her husband's influence may be weighing on her opinion more than what she realizes. It's a very common phenomenon.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-25-2011, 08:44 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I think that Ann has lost perspective of where she is in the political/ ideological spectrum. Her husband's influence may be weighing on her opinion more than what she realizes. It's a very common phenomenon.
It's also quite a common phenomenon for you to make nasty comments about any conservative woman who appears on BHTV. Weird! Test this yourself. Notice your skin crawling when Kristen Solis comes back next week.

__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-25-2011, 08:41 PM
alexanderf alexanderf is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

The deep bitterness of Althouse in the first section is wonderful. It's hard to come across as more insincere in the repeated claims to be of the left.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-25-2011, 08:57 PM
Freddie Freddie is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 110
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

9/10 cruise missile liberals agree-- bomb Libya.

Never change, Bob. You're so wonderfully predictable.

I have a crazy suggestion: put Daniel Larison on to forcefully make the case against war on Libya.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-25-2011, 09:35 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

It's amazing to hear Ann's indignation at the protesters in Wisconsin when a few months ago she was adamantly defending Tea Partier protesters. Bob repeatedly tried to show her the double standards but she wasn't able to grasp what he was saying.

We are all blinded by our biases to some degree. At least we should be able to acknowledge that's the case some of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-25-2011, 09:44 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Ann points out and goes on to defend Scott Walker stating that the unions' contributions to the Democratic party create a dysfunctional political dynamic. How about the Koch's brothers manipulation of the state politics? Isn't that the real scandalous and corrupted dynamic?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-25-2011, 09:59 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

During the last diavlog between Bob and Ann, Ann brushed off the impact of Glenn Beck's lies and conspiracy accusations and the possibility that those could incite to violent acts. She ardently defended freedom of speech and minimized the risks.

Now she is fired up about the threats she received and she states that the accusations from the person responsible for such threats may incite violence from others. She reproaches that Bob isn't more sympathetic to her plea. But, why should he? The audience that Beck reaches is infinitely larger than Ann's accuser's. Should there be freedom of speech even if it implies putting someone at risk? Or should there not be? Perhaps we need to come up with some guidelines about it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-25-2011, 09:52 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Rave On - heh indeedy!

I guess our pal Ann has never heard of a RINO.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/350...1:54&out=02:11

The closer you get to the extreme on either side, the more likely you are to run up against the purity police. But, as a general rule, people like David Frum and Dave Weigel, to name two, are persona non grata on their own side. I wonder how often Frank Fukuyama, or the Senators from Maine get invited to Rush Limbaugh's parties? The best they can do on that side is barely tolerate Hitchens when, and only when, he's applying his devastating facility with rhetoric to a point they already agree with.

The left may not have a perfect record on this score, but when Bernie Saunders, Jim Manchin amd Chuck Schumer are all voting more or less on the same side, heterodoxy just isn't that side's immediate problem.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-25-2011, 10:31 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Rave On (Robert Wright & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
It's amazing to hear Ann's indignation at the protesters in Wisconsin when a few months ago she was adamantly defending Tea Partier protesters. Bob repeatedly tried to show her the double standards but she wasn't able to grasp what he was saying.
The real double standard exhibited over the past few months is the difference between the way the msm blamed the tea party for the AZ shooting when they were completely wrong with the way they've collectively ignored the violence, threats, stalkings, vandalism etc of the union thugs and their stooges.

Althouse completely exposes Wright's smear with her "just ridiculous" quote. Wright even surrenders by not even offering to take up Ann in her recommendation he do a little research before he spouts his propaganda.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-25-2011, 10:37 PM
dankingbooks dankingbooks is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 83
Default If the dog catches the car

The problem with Bob's humanitarian argument for invading Libya (to which I am emotionally sympathetic) is that what happens if we succeed? Aren't the rebels just another incarnation of Qaddafi? Or perhaps allied with al Qaeda? Is this a war we really want to win?
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 12:17 AM.


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