I'm pretty sure our next target will be France. I can't believe we've let these atrocities committed against our merchant sailors go unpunished by invasion for so long!
Seriously, though, this seems nonsensical to me. Is Gaddafi a bad dude? Yeah. Should he be punished for his actions in the past? Yeah. Does this mean that we should be bombing the country, potentially arming the rebels, etc.? That's a huge leap. Are we going to go around punishing everyone who's done us wrong, often decades after the fact, with military force?
Please get off my back, sir, unless you have some substance to add.
Hello Pot, this is the Kettle calling. (See previous thread.)
Anyway, nonpartisan and objective are two different things. Your ignorance is obvious. I suppose, then, that pointing out the obvious doesn't amount to substance. So off your back I will get.
By the way, there's a difference between “Trutherism” in its watered down form, and “Trutherism” in its batshit crazy form, and there’s a difference between “Trutherism” and “Birtherism.”
“Trutherism” in its watered down form says that the U.S. government, or Bush in particular, knew about 9/11 before it happened. While I’m not a Truther of this form, I can see how one might believe this and be fairly rational: we’ve heard for almost 10 years now about the warning signs, for example, that were ignored or missed. Again, I don’t think Bush, or the U.S. government generally, knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I can see where the belief came from. It's not much worse than believing, as appears to actually be the case, that Bush and the intelligence community were just incompetent. I can’t, however, see how the batshit crazy Truthers who think the government perpetrated 9/11 (controlled demolition, e.g.) can be said to hold a rational belief on this matter.
The contrast between watered-down trutherism and birtherism is that there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. He’s released his birth certificate (the long-form, short-form stuff is nonsense; it’s the official birth certificate that the state of Hawaii releases!), there are birth notices, etc., and all Bob and his ilk have is a recording that doesn’t even say what they say it does. They have nothing to hang their hat on whatsoever.
Mike, first, the "long form" nonsense is nonsense.
Second, it's of course true that conspiracy theorizing is nonpartisan, but conspiracies about presidents specifically seems to be a more widespread hobby on the Right than the Left.
Am I the only one that thinks some of the Birther nonsense could have been cleared up in 2008 with a little more effort from candidate Obama?
You're not the only one, but since he released his birth certificate, you and the rest are obviously basing that thought on your own ignorance.
Also, I wonder how much of this is directly attributable to his name and also what % is attributed to his ties to certain ‘radicals’?
The answer to the first part of that is obvious, as is the fact that it's related to his skin color. The answer to the second part is, huh?
It's clearly not the case that large numbers of conservatives wouldn't become crazy conspiracy theorists about a Democratic president if he weren't black (witness the conspiracy theories about Clinton), it's just that the particular conspiracy theory they've invented for Obama is directly related to the fact that he's black.
I'm skeptical, if slightly ambivalent, about intervention in Libya, but anyone who compares it to Iraq in order to accuse Obama of doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do is being dishonest. The reasons liberals, progressives, and the left generally opposed Iraq, aside from pacivism and non-interventionism (which are hardly universal, or even widely held positions on the left), had more to do with the case for the war being manufactured, the lack of a sizeable coalition or security council resolution, etc. Most if not all of those reasons don't hold here. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, just that it's not really what Obama promised not to do.
"I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. Etc."
I find it hard to take the argument that he's killed enough Americans to die a violent death seriously, as a pragmatic argument, when the Americans were killed some time ago. It's a revenge argument.
Those arguments are neither cynical nor pragmatic. Instead, they seem pretty idealistic.
Well, maybe 3 is a bit pragmatic, but it seems to be a pragmatic case for nonintervention -- if they can do it, why the hell do we need to get involved?
Bob, yeah, it's racist. You can pretend it's not, but I doubt you're fooling anyone.
And the French and Native Americans would take issue with the idea that isolationism was the only, or fundamental, or even dominant position of early America.
False on the first count, misleading on the second. Egypt's turned violent, though not "tanks and artillery violent," pretty quickly. Libya's turned violent when the pro-Qaddafi troops began firing on protesters with anti-aircraft guns, artillery, tanks, planes, and helicopters.
Tom, but it's not just a partisan issue. There are fundamental reasons why liberals -- which is not to say Democratic politicians, necessarily -- favor labor over capital in many if not most situations. It has to do with values. You know, those things you're always harping on? It's become a partisan issue of late largely because the right made it one (as Governor Walker made quite explicit).
Tom, as I've said previously on this blog, public sector unions are a difficult case. One of the main reasons it's become a big issue for liberals (not necessarily Democrats, as some obviously don’t care) is that they see public sector unions as the only remaining prominent salient of organized labor. It’s a battle ground less because public sector unions make sense from a labor perspective than because the right has so undercut private sector unions in favor of capital (and that means in favor of corporations) that liberals have to hold onto whatever they can, union-wise.
That doesn’t mean that public sector unions aren’t justified, and that they aren’t justified on broadly similar grounds to private sector unions, it’s just that the case is less straightforward since there’s not a direct, or at least transparent, relationship between the government and capital.
It may be true that there are politicians who support unions because they get money from them, but pretending that’s surprising is like pretending that it’s surprising Republicans support the oil industry because they get money from it. In both cases, it has little or nothing to do with why people who aren’t receiving money from whichever interest group we’re talking about support those groups. But you know, for you, everything is about bias: lioberals/Democrats are biased, and Tom (and those who think like him) is right, so none of this will matter to you.
Tom, whether you realize it or not, and I'm quite sure you don't, unions have always been about serving as a balance to capital, which in our time is often in the form of corporations. That's what unions were created for, as the industrial revolution created an imbalance, not, as the guest poster so oddly put it a week or two ago, insuring a minimum level of something or other. This isn't a partisan thing, or at least it doesn't have to be. It's the very nature of unions to balance against capital. The fact that it's become a partisan thing shows little more than on which side one of the player's in the partisan game's bread is buttered. Of course, Democrats are equally in bed with "evil corporations" (which aren't evil, they're just amoral), but at least they make a pretense of thinking about the balance. Of course, the fact that unions have been dying in this country for the last 30 years shows that it's little more than a pretense. Democrats ultimately know on which side their bread is buttered, too.
Can someone tell me what the hell Tom's talking about? Is he just injecting an only loosely related (in that it's about unions) political gotchya into the thread, or have his biases become so pervasive that he reads them into everything?
Except a "fair" outcome isn't a single outcome, it is in fact a procedural one. It's about justice and fairness, not about a minimum or some particular standard. This is why the difference matters (as I tried to point out below). Your entire post hinges on your characterization of the liberal position, and since you've gotten it completely wrong, the rest of the post falls apart, or at least fails to address, as Tom says below, reality.
Tom, I've pointed out above how he's mischaracterized the justification of unions. It has nothing to do with "minimum standards," or any single outcome. The only outcome in question is fairness. So whatever reality he's discussing, it ain't the liberal position on unions, much less the leftist one.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Rand Paul and the Imperial Presidency”
I'm pretty sure our next target will be France. I can't believe we've let these atrocities committed against our merchant sailors go unpunished by invasion for so long!
Seriously, though, this seems nonsensical to me. Is Gaddafi a bad dude? Yeah. Should he be punished for his actions in the past? Yeah. Does this mean that we should be bombing the country, potentially arming the rebels, etc.? That's a huge leap. Are we going to go around punishing everyone who's done us wrong, often decades after the fact, with military force?
"
Please get off my back, sir, unless you have some substance to add.
Hello Pot, this is the Kettle calling. (See previous thread.)
Anyway, nonpartisan and objective are two different things. Your ignorance is obvious. I suppose, then, that pointing out the obvious doesn't amount to substance. So off your back I will get.
"
I'm glad to see Tom addressing this from an objective, informed perspective.
On “Birtherism”
By the way, there's a difference between “Trutherism” in its watered down form, and “Trutherism” in its batshit crazy form, and there’s a difference between “Trutherism” and “Birtherism.”
“Trutherism” in its watered down form says that the U.S. government, or Bush in particular, knew about 9/11 before it happened. While I’m not a Truther of this form, I can see how one might believe this and be fairly rational: we’ve heard for almost 10 years now about the warning signs, for example, that were ignored or missed. Again, I don’t think Bush, or the U.S. government generally, knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I can see where the belief came from. It's not much worse than believing, as appears to actually be the case, that Bush and the intelligence community were just incompetent. I can’t, however, see how the batshit crazy Truthers who think the government perpetrated 9/11 (controlled demolition, e.g.) can be said to hold a rational belief on this matter.
The contrast between watered-down trutherism and birtherism is that there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. He’s released his birth certificate (the long-form, short-form stuff is nonsense; it’s the official birth certificate that the state of Hawaii releases!), there are birth notices, etc., and all Bob and his ilk have is a recording that doesn’t even say what they say it does. They have nothing to hang their hat on whatsoever.
"
http://washingtonindependent.com/60625/republican-birthers-outnumber-democratic-truthers#
More recent numbers than the Rasmussen.
I assume Tom won't acknowledge this comment. It doesn't fit with his "the world is biased, I'm the only objective one" mentality.
"
There are more Truthers on the Left than Birthers on the Right.
First, you have that data?
Second, trutherism was about the government in general (a common conspiracy-inspiring subject on the Left), not the president in particular.
"
Mike, first, the "long form" nonsense is nonsense.
Second, it's of course true that conspiracy theorizing is nonpartisan, but conspiracies about presidents specifically seems to be a more widespread hobby on the Right than the Left.
"
Am I the only one that thinks some of the Birther nonsense could have been cleared up in 2008 with a little more effort from candidate Obama?
You're not the only one, but since he released his birth certificate, you and the rest are obviously basing that thought on your own ignorance.
Also, I wonder how much of this is directly attributable to his name and also what % is attributed to his ties to certain ‘radicals’?
The answer to the first part of that is obvious, as is the fact that it's related to his skin color. The answer to the second part is, huh?
It's clearly not the case that large numbers of conservatives wouldn't become crazy conspiracy theorists about a Democratic president if he weren't black (witness the conspiracy theories about Clinton), it's just that the particular conspiracy theory they've invented for Obama is directly related to the fact that he's black.
On “Quote for the day”
I'm skeptical, if slightly ambivalent, about intervention in Libya, but anyone who compares it to Iraq in order to accuse Obama of doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do is being dishonest. The reasons liberals, progressives, and the left generally opposed Iraq, aside from pacivism and non-interventionism (which are hardly universal, or even widely held positions on the left), had more to do with the case for the war being manufactured, the lack of a sizeable coalition or security council resolution, etc. Most if not all of those reasons don't hold here. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, just that it's not really what Obama promised not to do.
On “A reed in the wind”
Here's what I just read:
"I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. I hate Obama no matter what he says or does. Etc."
On “No country for old dictators”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
On “Leo Strauss, Meet John Stuart Mill”
Everyone is biased but Tom (and those who think like him). Tom has told us so in comment thread after comment thread. Plus, Tom's winning, duh!
On “On Libya and the Moral Case Against Intervention”
I find it hard to take the argument that he's killed enough Americans to die a violent death seriously, as a pragmatic argument, when the Americans were killed some time ago. It's a revenge argument.
"
Those arguments are neither cynical nor pragmatic. Instead, they seem pretty idealistic.
Well, maybe 3 is a bit pragmatic, but it seems to be a pragmatic case for nonintervention -- if they can do it, why the hell do we need to get involved?
"
Bob, yeah, it's racist. You can pretend it's not, but I doubt you're fooling anyone.
And the French and Native Americans would take issue with the idea that isolationism was the only, or fundamental, or even dominant position of early America.
"
Bob, you can always be counted on for the racist and historically inaccurate perspective.
On “Free Market as Forest”
Yeah, that's not quite what "they" are doing. But hey, why quibble about little things like what they actually say?
On “Toward a norm of humanitarian intervention”
—Egypt’s was nonviolent. Libya’s is not.
False on the first count, misleading on the second. Egypt's turned violent, though not "tanks and artillery violent," pretty quickly. Libya's turned violent when the pro-Qaddafi troops began firing on protesters with anti-aircraft guns, artillery, tanks, planes, and helicopters.
On “Free Market as Forest”
Tom, but it's not just a partisan issue. There are fundamental reasons why liberals -- which is not to say Democratic politicians, necessarily -- favor labor over capital in many if not most situations. It has to do with values. You know, those things you're always harping on? It's become a partisan issue of late largely because the right made it one (as Governor Walker made quite explicit).
"
Tom, as I've said previously on this blog, public sector unions are a difficult case. One of the main reasons it's become a big issue for liberals (not necessarily Democrats, as some obviously don’t care) is that they see public sector unions as the only remaining prominent salient of organized labor. It’s a battle ground less because public sector unions make sense from a labor perspective than because the right has so undercut private sector unions in favor of capital (and that means in favor of corporations) that liberals have to hold onto whatever they can, union-wise.
That doesn’t mean that public sector unions aren’t justified, and that they aren’t justified on broadly similar grounds to private sector unions, it’s just that the case is less straightforward since there’s not a direct, or at least transparent, relationship between the government and capital.
It may be true that there are politicians who support unions because they get money from them, but pretending that’s surprising is like pretending that it’s surprising Republicans support the oil industry because they get money from it. In both cases, it has little or nothing to do with why people who aren’t receiving money from whichever interest group we’re talking about support those groups. But you know, for you, everything is about bias: lioberals/Democrats are biased, and Tom (and those who think like him) is right, so none of this will matter to you.
"
Tom, whether you realize it or not, and I'm quite sure you don't, unions have always been about serving as a balance to capital, which in our time is often in the form of corporations. That's what unions were created for, as the industrial revolution created an imbalance, not, as the guest poster so oddly put it a week or two ago, insuring a minimum level of something or other. This isn't a partisan thing, or at least it doesn't have to be. It's the very nature of unions to balance against capital. The fact that it's become a partisan thing shows little more than on which side one of the player's in the partisan game's bread is buttered. Of course, Democrats are equally in bed with "evil corporations" (which aren't evil, they're just amoral), but at least they make a pretense of thinking about the balance. Of course, the fact that unions have been dying in this country for the last 30 years shows that it's little more than a pretense. Democrats ultimately know on which side their bread is buttered, too.
"
Can someone tell me what the hell Tom's talking about? Is he just injecting an only loosely related (in that it's about unions) political gotchya into the thread, or have his biases become so pervasive that he reads them into everything?
On “Labor Roundtable: The Labor Movement, Redistributive Justice, and Procedural Fairness”
Ricci v. DeStefano?
"
Except a "fair" outcome isn't a single outcome, it is in fact a procedural one. It's about justice and fairness, not about a minimum or some particular standard. This is why the difference matters (as I tried to point out below). Your entire post hinges on your characterization of the liberal position, and since you've gotten it completely wrong, the rest of the post falls apart, or at least fails to address, as Tom says below, reality.
"
Tom, I've pointed out above how he's mischaracterized the justification of unions. It has nothing to do with "minimum standards," or any single outcome. The only outcome in question is fairness. So whatever reality he's discussing, it ain't the liberal position on unions, much less the leftist one.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.