- This topic has 116 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
Veritas.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 6, 2011 at 1:15 PM #728505September 6, 2011 at 1:15 PM #728506
Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Words mean things. Ideas have weight. I don’t use the term “liberal/Liberal” as a pejorative, both because it is not (to me) and because it is one of the most beautiful words and concepts in the English language.[/quote]
Agree with that 100%.
The creation of our Liberal Democracy is perhaps the most significant development in human history.
[quote]I do use the term Leftist (capital L) as a pejorative because it represents an utterly amoral, intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly reprehensible worldview and it has ties to a vile political system that killed 100MM and which I personally took up arms against during my military service. Sadly, the sticky, foul remnants of this same debunked moral infantilism run through our academic circles and pool in certain areas of the urban intelligentsia. It manifests itself in the use of various memes, tropes and symbology/iconography and I take great pains to fire upon it when I see it.[/quote]
But that Che Guevara image is so cool!
September 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM #728509Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]For the record, I have no truck with Limbaugh, Hannity or any of their ilk, and find them as stupid and mindless as their confederates on the Left, including Maddow and Olbermann.[/quote]
Did someone say false equivalence?[/quote]
Afx: No false equivalence whatsoever. Maddow and Olbermann exist for the same reason that Limbaugh, Hannity et al exist: To gin up ratings/viewership. They are ALL entertainers, pure and simple.
As Jon Stewart made expressly clear when braced about his journalistic “ethics”: It is not journalism, its comedy (or entertainment, depending on whom we’re talking about).
September 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM #728511Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Words mean things. Ideas have weight. I don’t use the term “liberal/Liberal” as a pejorative, both because it is not (to me) and because it is one of the most beautiful words and concepts in the English language.[/quote]
Agree with that 100%.
The creation of our Liberal Democracy is perhaps the most significant development in human history.
[quote]I do use the term Leftist (capital L) as a pejorative because it represents an utterly amoral, intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly reprehensible worldview and it has ties to a vile political system that killed 100MM and which I personally took up arms against during my military service. Sadly, the sticky, foul remnants of this same debunked moral infantilism run through our academic circles and pool in certain areas of the urban intelligentsia. It manifests itself in the use of various memes, tropes and symbology/iconography and I take great pains to fire upon it when I see it.[/quote]
But that Che Guevara image is so cool![/quote]
Pri: Yeah, it is, but not nearly as cool as the grave that murderous Stalinist thug is rotting in.
Couple of things here to think about. First, you rail on about the Defense budget, but fail to mention that Obama just passed the largest Defense budget in US history. You also fail to mention that this same guy promised a “line by line” review of the entire US budget as well. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t even delivered a budget to this point.
Second, you assert that I was singling Obama out in my post, but fail to note that the topic itself was about green jobs during the Obama administration (and he’s inarguably a big fan of them, promising some 5 million green jobs over the next 10 years). Concurrent with that, I also took pains to post articles from decidedly non-right-wing sources, including WashPost and NYT. This isn’t an example of “hating” on Obama, its just pointing out facts.
Third, the Solyndra case absolutely reeks of crony capitalism, in that the 2008 campaign financial support of George Kaiser, a billionaire Obama supporter and Dem Party bundler, was rewarded and even protected (Kaiser is in line before the US taxpayer on this loss).
Lastly, for you to praise American liberal democracy whilst simultaneously supporting torture and targeted assassinations strikes me as hypocritical and wrong. Especially coming from a former US Army officer.
September 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM #728514GuestNope, never supported torture or anything like it.
I did provide an explanation as to why I think Obama is avoiding it as a political issue. Big difference between that and supporting it.
One reason my career as a US Army officer was much shorter than yours is that I didn’t want to be part of that scene. Even in my very short stateside career I saw some pretty shameful ethical behavior. Probably more than I’ve seen cumulatively in two decades of my civilian career (even when I worked on “Wall Street.”) There’s a helluva lot of ethical rationalization that goes on in the American military – cuz we’re the “good guys” right?
Based on the disregard for ethics I saw in peacetime, I cringe to think what I may have seen during war. So I choose to avoid the situation altogether. It doesn’t make me a hero, but it sure doesn’t mean I’m a criminal either.
I know there’s a helluva lot of bad stuff that our guys did in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. that never gets reported. Way too many people join the military for the chance to kill someone. And way too many officers are wiling to look the other way to avoid a blemish on their record. And it goes way up the chain.
After all, it’s war and they’re just ragheads – or kids of ragheads – right?
Now I do believe in defending our nation and our Constitution. And if either of those is ever facing a real, tangible threat, I’d be willing to put the uniform back on in a heartbeat. I’d even take orders from you, and I’m still in pretty good shape…
Sorry Allan, I’m not the bad guy. But you and I both know that you worked for 20+ years on a daily basis with real bad guys. Not all them, but you knew a few I’m sure.
And who’s complicit in all this – who actually has the power to do something and chooses instead to profit from it?
The right wing media machine. They actually do defend and support torture.
But you have so little to say about them. Is it because they are just entertainers?
Was Edward R. Murrow just an entertainer as well?
September 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM #728516njtosd
Participant[quote=flu]Oops…$500 million…
No worries, I’m sure some company in China will buy all the I.P./patents that this company created from the economic stimulus grants inevitably paid by taxpayers at 10cents on the dollar -( [/quote]
FWIW –
Federally funded inventions always come with an automatic paid up non exclusive license to the U.S. government. There are limitations on licensing (must try to avoid exclusive licenses, assignment to a foreign national would be highly unusual, must try to keep manufacturing of invention in the U.S. etc.). Of course, all that applies only if you are playing by the rules . . .
September 6, 2011 at 3:48 PM #728517Participant[quote=pri_dk]Nope, never supported torture or anything like it.
I did provide an explanation as to why I think Obama is avoiding it as a political issue. Big difference between that and supporting it.
One reason my career as a US Army officer was much shorter than yours is that I didn’t want to be part of that scene. Even in my very short stateside career I saw some pretty shameful ethical behavior. Probably more than I’ve seen cumulatively in two decades of my civilian career (even when I worked on “Wall Street.”) There’s a helluva lot of ethical rationalization that goes on in the American military – cuz we’re the “good guys” right?
Based on the disregard for ethics I saw in peacetime, I cringe to think what I may have seen during war. So I choose to avoid the situation altogether. It doesn’t make me a hero, but it sure doesn’t mean I’m a criminal either.
I know there’s a helluva lot of bad stuff that our guys did in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. that never gets reported. Way too many people join the military for the chance to kill someone. And way too many officers are wiling to look the other way to avoid a blemish on their record. And it goes way up the chain.
After all, it’s war and they’re just ragheads – or kids of ragheads – right?
Now I do believe in defending our nation and our Constitution. And if either of those is ever facing a real, tangible threat, I’d be willing to put the uniform back on in a heartbeat. I’d even take orders from you, and I’m still in pretty good shape…
Sorry Allan, I’m not the bad guy. But you and I both know that you worked for 20+ years on a daily basis with real bad guys. Not all them, but you knew a few I’m sure.
And who’s complicit in all this – who actually has the power to do something and chooses instead to profit from it?
The right wing media machine. They actually do defend and support torture.
But you have so little to say about them. Is it because they are just entertainers?
Was Edward R. Murrow just an entertainer as well?[/quote]
Pri: Sorry, but you explicitly stated (“Heck, I’ll admit it now” were your words) that you had no problems with targeted assassinations and extraordinary renditions. What do you think is happening at those various CIA black sites around the world, dinner theater?
I didn’t say you were a bad guy, or the bad guy. I said that for someone to wax lyrical about liberal democracy, but support assassination and torture was hypocritical and wrong. It is.
I’d also recommend you spend a little time in and around the various towns and villages of Afghanistan and watch the treatment of the locals by American servicemen and women. Note that our troops actually incur casualties in order to NOT put citizens at risk. The idea that the US Army and Marines are running around murdering innocent “ragheads” is untrue and ignorant. Are there instances where this happens? Absolutely. There’s a war on and this sort of thing does happen. Is it “institutionalized”? No, it isn’t and, no, I’m not making excuses. Yeah, I did know some bad guys in my time and there were certain programs, especially during Vietnam that went well beyond the pale. Part of my visceral reaction to things like torture, rendition and assassination springs from personal experience and the realization that, once you lose that part of your soul, you don’t get it back.
That’s also why I pay so much attention to things like civil liberties and the Patriot Act and all the various “little” intrusions that are, in fact, big intrusions into our privacy and rights. You mention defending the Constitution and our nation, well, what do you think this is?
In the next breath you mention Edward R. Murrow, who represents journalism at its finest. No, he was not an entertainer. He was a journalist and exceptionally skilled at his craft and his work leading to the censure of Joe McCarthy is peerless. What do you think Murrow would say about Gitmo? Patriots I and II? Warrantless wiretapping?
You can’t compare Murrow to idiots like Olbermann or Limbaugh. The times are different and people aren’t driven by actual news containing actual facts. They’re driven by TMZ and the tabloid culture we live in, or they’re driven by pure vituperation as vomited out by Olbermann and Limbaugh. Inveigling against Leftists doesn’t make me a card carrying member of the GOP. You’re well aware that I haven’t voted GOP since 1996 and I thought Dubya was both a Godawful choice for president and a Godawful president. Sadly, our choices to continue to decline, as does the quality of actual, factual reportage, both print and electronic.
We’re fearful, venal, corrupt, gullible and we have exactly the republic we deserve.
September 6, 2011 at 3:49 PM #728518scaredyclassic
ParticipantShoot. I cannot think of any principles I’m willing to die for.
Actually I would prefer to live on my knees than die on my feet. It gets tiring being on your feet all day anyway.
September 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM #728521AK
ParticipantI worked in the (figurative and literal) trenches of a previous “green jobs” boom-bust cycle in California … the underground storage tank remediation bubble, which happened to coincide with the ’90s recession.
Enormous sums of money went to waste (pun intended) in an effort to clean up contamination caused by leaking gasoline/diesel/solvent/etc. tanks, much of it coming from “user fees” that were indirectly passed on to consumers. Much of the money came from struggling small businesses too, especially mom-and-pop gas stations. Who profited? Much of it went to snake-oil vendors and other charlatans who charged extortionate prices for unproven technology. Some of it went to incompetent or borderline criminal contractors. Certainly the general public and the business community did not benefit in proportion to the amount of money spent.
In the end I saw some efficient, cost-effective technology emerge from the mess. But by then the public and private sectors were both flat broke.
September 7, 2011 at 7:59 AM #728541Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Sorry, but you explicitly stated (“Heck, I’ll admit it now” were your words) that you had no problems with targeted assassinations and extraordinary renditions.[/quote]
And now for the full quote:
[quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations[/quote]Heck, I’ll admit it now.[/quote]
Not exactly “no problems” with it, and certainly not “support” of it.
Now that we are in violent agreement about the civil liberties issues, let’s get back to developing a solution.
So how do I, or anyone else, defend the Constitution in this situation?
Don’t vote for Obama? So who do I vote for – Perry?
Vote for a sure-to-lose third party candidate, or not vote at all?
So I don’t know how exactly to solve this problem, but I do know that it couldn’t hurt to educate the public.
[quote]What do you think Murrow would say about Gitmo? Patriots I and II? Warrantless wiretapping?[/quote]
Probably the same thing people like Maddow and and Olbermann have said about them (regardless of what party has been in office.)
The question more relevant to the current situation: What has Limbaugh, et al. said about Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc.?
(Now you can go ahead and use the word “support.”)
True, there are no Murrow equivalents today. I’m certainly not claiming Maddow and Olbermann are anywhere near his standard as a journalist. But there is one group that at least “gets it” when it comes to this fundamental American value: We don’t compromise civil liberties for security, and certainly not for ratings.
But for some reason, you just lump them all into the same “equivalent” group. “The Maddows are as bad as the Limbaughs.” You brush off the the size, reach, and influence of the Fox media machine, the Republican party, and their coordinated message (which you claim is the opposite of your values.) You ignore the fact the Rick Perry has a dismal civil liberties track record, and has said nothing in opposition to torture, Patriot, etc. (seriously, where do you think he stands on these?)
But you almost always bring up civil liberties issues when we are talking about Obama.
The reason for these inconsistencies? I’ve tried to understand your explanations, but honestly they just don’t make sense anymore.
September 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM #728550Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Sorry, but you explicitly stated (“Heck, I’ll admit it now” were your words) that you had no problems with targeted assassinations and extraordinary renditions.[/quote]
And now for the full quote:
[quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations[/quote]Heck, I’ll admit it now.[/quote]
Not exactly “no problems” with it, and certainly not “support” of it.
Now that we are in violent agreement about the civil liberties issues, let’s get back to developing a solution.
So how do I, or anyone else, defend the Constitution in this situation?
Don’t vote for Obama? So who do I vote for – Perry?
Vote for a sure-to-lose third party candidate, or not vote at all?
So I don’t know how exactly to solve this problem, but I do know that it couldn’t hurt to educate the public.
[quote]What do you think Murrow would say about Gitmo? Patriots I and II? Warrantless wiretapping?[/quote]
Probably the same thing people like Maddow and and Olbermann have said about them (regardless of what party has been in office.)
The question more relevant to the current situation: What has Limbaugh, et al. said about Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc.?
(Now you can go ahead and use the word “support.”)
True, there are no Murrow equivalents today. I’m certainly not claiming Maddow and Olbermann are anywhere near his standard as a journalist. But there is one group that at least “gets it” when it comes to this fundamental American value: We don’t compromise civil liberties for security, and certainly not for ratings.
But for some reason, you just lump them all into the same “equivalent” group. “The Maddows are as bad as the Limbaughs.” You brush off the the size, reach, and influence of the Fox media machine, the Republican party, and their coordinated message (which you claim is the opposite of your values.) You ignore the fact the Rick Perry has a dismal civil liberties track record, and has said nothing in opposition to torture, Patriot, etc. (seriously, where do you think he stands on these?)
But you almost always bring up civil liberties issues when we are talking about Obama.
The reason for these inconsistencies? I’ve tried to understand your explanations, but honestly they just don’t make sense anymore.[/quote]
Pri: First off, my apologies on the “I’ll admit it now” quote: I misread that, and thus your intent.
As to the remainder of your posting, I’ll address your erroneous statements and incorrect suppositions.
As I’ve always tried to be clear, offering a criticism of one side does not imply explicit support for the other. When I conflated Maddow with Limbaugh, it was not as simple as you make it. I simply said that Maddow, like Limbaugh, is an entertainer and I also pointed out that Maddow (and Olbermann) were nowhere someone like Murrow. All of these things are true. However, you’ve spun this into a Left versus Right debate and further added the massive reach of the Fox News party organ. I’ve never opined on this, since the topics we were discussing centered on the present sitting president.
Which leads us to Obama and Perry. I don’t debate that Perry supports all of the wonderful little programs inherent to the National Security State. Obama, however, does NOT and there is the key fallacy in your argument as to my “inconsistencies”. There is a HUGE difference between someone of Perry’s beliefs and Obama’s, hence your assertion that “one side gets it”, while the other (presumably) does not.
Further, Obama CAMPAIGNED vigorously against these programs and even issued an Executive Order (which you proffered as proof of his intent and beliefs) which directed the closing of Gitmo. You cannot have it both ways, pri, but you’re trying to. You cannot argue that one side gets it (although they do nothing about it) and the other doesn’t, and then try to hide behind an “inconsistencies” argument and the Obama “hating” meme. While I’d expect a dullard like Dubya to not fully understand the deleterious effect these programs have on our great Republic, I would CERTAINLY expect a Constitutional Law professor like Obama to, and hence my forlorn and misguided hope that he would follow up on his campaign promises and roll these programs back.
Side note. Not only has Obama NOT done so, he has expanded said programs in some instances and, further, has taken to prosecuting whistleblowers to an extent not seen in decades.
Lastly, your vote for President is not what I was talking about in terms of defending the Constitution. If you’ll recall your high school Civics course, you know that there are steps ranging from writing your representative to writing op/ed pieces to even writing the Supreme Court. A simple vote for President is no panacea, nor was it what I was advocating.
Of course, I come from a background that advocates, “Don’t bitch, DO”.
September 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM #728568briansd1
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Which leads us to Obama and Perry. I don’t debate that Perry supports all of the wonderful little programs inherent to the National Security State. Obama, however, does NOT and there is the key fallacy in your argument as to my “inconsistencies”. There is a HUGE difference between someone of Perry’s beliefs and Obama’s, hence your assertion that “one side gets it”, while the other (presumably) does not.
[/quote]Allan, as Pri pointed out several times, you hold Obama to a higher standard because he’s a constitutional law professor.
In my opinion, you have to look at Obama in contrast to his Republican opponent and in light of policies that can realistically be achieved.
So you have one side that in principle (if not in deeds) is for civil liberties, and you have the other side that actively advocates torture and intrusive security policies.
As you you like to say, words have meanings and power. Even if you can’t or won’t actively work to change things, speaking out against injustices eventually affects the culture and the outcomes.
You claim that Republicans and Democrats are the same because you have lost faith in Republicans and can no longer vote for them (the losing team likes to claim that we all lost).
Republicans and Democrats are not the same. That’s where the false equivalence is.
September 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM #728582Participant[quote=briansd1]
Republicans and Democrats are not the same. That’s where the false equivalence is.[/quote]Brian: Let’s test your assertion, shall we? We were discussing civil liberties, right? So, if we compare Obama (Democrat) to Bush (Republican), we should marked differences in both word and deed, correct?
That would then mean that, on policies and programs, Obama would be doing things vastly differently than Bush did. Taking it one step further, Obama had virtual Democratic control of both houses of Congress and the Executive, right up till the 2010 midterms, meaning Republican opposition to Obama’s promised rollbacks on Gitmo, Patriots I and II, etc would have been a non-issue since Democrats were in control. Moreover, Obama had already (according to pri) indicated his position through the use of Executive Order (on closure of Gitmo) and through various speeches on the importance of following through with his campaign promises.
Which leaves us where? You know the answer to that question, don’t you, Brian? The FACT is that the Dems and GOP are virtually indistinguishable from one another and Obama is a Democrat in name only, not in deed. The Dems in Congress were falling all over themselves to line up to vote for the Iraq War (admittedly, with the exception of Obama). Look at the voting records of Dems versus Repubs on the various programs and policies of the so-called “War on Terror” and show me the difference. There isn’t one. Both sides are corporatist now and both rely on staggering sums of money to get elected. You think either party is “of the people”?
Don’t use a term like “false equivalence” unless you truly understand what it means and can demonstrably prove your case.
September 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM #728583Guest[quote=briansd1]In my opinion, you have to look at Obama in contrast to his Republican opponent and in light of policies that can realistically be achieved.
So you [Allan] have one side that in principle (if not in deeds) is for civil liberties, and you have the other side that actively advocates torture and intrusive security policies.
As you you like to say, words have meanings and power. Even if you can’t or won’t actively work to change things, speaking out against injustices eventually affects the culture and the outcomes.
You claim that Republicans and Democrats are the same because you have lost faith in Republicans and can no longer vote for them (the losing team likes to claim that we all lost).[/quote]
Well said.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The FACT is that the Dems and GOP are virtually indistinguishable from one another[/quote]
That’s a trite oversimplification.
And if you really believed it, why are your responses to Dem vs. GOP positions on this forum so dramatically different?
September 7, 2011 at 1:29 PM #728585GuestAllan, I would submit that Democrats voted for the Iraq war because they feared being maligned as “providing comfort” to the enemy.
They voted very reluctantly for the war.
Democrats were lazy and they didn’t want to go to the public and make the case against war and against the Republican idea of the war on terrorism.
The Democrats were like the French who capitulated to the Nazi Germans. They did not join the resistance, but neither were they active collaborators (no, I’m not talking about the Vichy regime).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.