OT: So much for those California “Green” Jobs

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, 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).[/quote]

Brian: I’m saving this one. This is beautiful. I’m not sure you meant to say what you actually did, but its unintentionally hilarious. Its also dead wrong (and there are dozens of citations from key Democrats on Iraq and the need for regime change) for you to assert that the Dems were “reluctant” on the subject of the Iraq War. It was a KEY CAMPAIGN point of Obama’s to draw the distinction between he and Hillary Clinton regarding support for the Iraq War (i.e. he did not support the war, and she did).

But this is all of a piece with your usual response. If the facts are against you, ignore them. Or make up new “facts”, like “reluctance”. Or, reframe the entire conversation by going all discursive and shit, like with this post.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
And if you really believed it, why are your responses to Dem vs. GOP positions on this forum so dramatically different?[/quote]

Pri: Uh, I’d like to see my positions strongly supporting the GOP offered as proof, please.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, 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.

[/quote]

Brian: If one Googles “democratic support for Iraq war”, one is directed to this link to Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Since it is Snopes, it deals very fairly with both the quotes and their supporting context/additional text (some of the quotes were truncated). Read them through, its very interesting stuff. It also utterly demolishes your “reluctance” and “lazy” arguments simultaneously.

Enjoy.

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk][
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?[/quote]

Simplification, a little. Though, once you wash away the demographically tested rhetoric and political POSTURING, not too far off.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]Allan, 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.

[/quote]

Brian: If one Googles “democratic support for Iraq war”, one is directed to this link to Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Since it is Snopes, it deals very fairly with both the quotes and their supporting context/additional text (some of the quotes were truncated). Read them through, its very interesting stuff. It also utterly demolishes your “reluctance” and “lazy” arguments simultaneously.

Enjoy.[/quote]

The democrats and Iraq is similar to the republicans and the bailouts. They have to do a little dog and pony show for their constituents but the key power players made sure each one happened.

The system runs the politicians, not the other way around. And this is not in a conspiratorial sense.

From, Immanuel Wallerstein, a Yale professor, American sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst. And one of my favorite thinkers of modern times.

http://www.iwallerstein.com/world-consequences-decline/

The newspapers are full of analyses of the political errors of Barack Obama. Who can argue with this? I could easily list dozens of decisions Obama has made which, in my view, were wrong, cowardly, and sometimes downright immoral. But I do wonder whether, if he had made all the much better decisions his base thinks he ought to have made, it would have made much difference in the outcome. The decline of the United States is not the result of poor decisions by its president, but of structural realities in the world-system. Obama may be the most powerful individual in the world still, but no president of the United States is or could be today as powerful as the presidents of yesteryear.

[briansd1]

Arraya, you should contribute to the marriage thread.

Isn’t life full of dog and pony shows? If you look deep enough you see it.

[briansd1]

But back on topic.

The outrage on the right over the $500 million loan guarantee is just not proportional to the potential loss to the taxpayers.

For some reason the right wants green energy to fail so that they say said “I told you so, green energy cannot work.”

[Anonymous]

Allan,

“strongly supporting the GOP?”

Once again, I never said those words. And you know what I’m talking about:

It is rare that you participate in a political thread without being critical of Obama.

But you rarely mention the GOP – unless you are challenged to do so – in which case there is the stock “I don’t like the GOP either” response.

Examples?

Start with this thread, then go to the “Rick Perry” thread, the” Dirty Banker”, the “Obama’s Accomplishments” thread…

There’s also the handful of tea party troll types that post completely idiotic attacks on Obama: Obama’s Accomplishments so Far: #1 Offended the Queen of England…

You never have a word to say about any of that cheap partisan nonsense, but tear into Brian on just about every one of his posts, constantly attacking his lack of “facts.”

So claims of “leftists” never seem to have enough substance, but you don’t seem to question that Obama Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims. (“Accomplishment” #23 – should be an item of interest to you.)

Why such different burdens of proof?

If you don’t see evidence of a bias using just these few examples, I’m just not going to bother trying to convince you beyond what I’ve written here.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan,

“strongly supporting the GOP?”

Once again, I never said those words. And you know what I’m talking about:

It is rare that you participate in a political thread without being critical of Obama.

But you rarely mention the GOP – unless you are challenged to do so – in which case there is the stock “I don’t like the GOP either” response.

Examples?

Start with this thread, then go to the “Rick Perry” thread, the” Dirty Banker”, the “Obama’s Accomplishments” thread…

There’s also the handful of tea party troll types that post completely idiotic attacks on Obama: Obama’s Accomplishments so Far: #1 Offended the Queen of England…

You never have a word to say about any of that cheap partisan nonsense, but tear into Brian on just about every one of his posts, constantly attacking his lack of “facts.”

So claims of “leftists” never seem to have enough substance, but you don’t seem to question that Obama Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims. (“Accomplishment” #23 – should be an item of interest to you.)

Why such different burdens of proof?

If you don’t see evidence of a bias using just these few examples, I’m just not going to bother trying to convince you beyond what I’ve written here.[/quote]

Pri: First off, you used the word “dramatically” to draw a delineation between the two. Your word and it creates a strong contrast, thus my retort.

For the record, I have offered strong rebukes to the reactionary Right trolls on this board as well, but I am also conservative in belief and principle and will therefore brace Leftists like Brian, especially when they come to the debate utterly bereft of facts and mouth the same meaningless post-structuralist nonsense ad nauseum. Brian doesn’t use facts, in fact he conspicuously avoids using them (see his “reluctant” and “lazy” Democrat argument above) and my puncturing Brian’s many and varied misstatements, untruths and prevaricating predates your quixotic sorties by a good period.

Your use of example #23 is a complete strawman. Why do I care again? Why is it an item of interest to me? I wasn’t responding to the OP in any of my posts, but neither was anyone else. Why suddenly bring up #23? It isn’t germane, but you seem to be trying to use it to make a point. Does my not questioning #23, which I’ve ever never even paid any attention to before, suddenly constitute some sort of tacit support?

As to burdens of proof: What the hell are you talking about? You’re now seeking evidentiary value for statements made on the board?

As to you not bothering to convince me: PLEASE! Stop trying to convince me! I’m good with it. Really.

[briansd1]

So Allan, if you believe that Democrats supported the Iraq War just as much as Republicans, then where do you think that “soft on terrorists” comes from?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32250.html

I believe that Democrats are indeed more reluctant to go to war; and that Republican are indeed trigger happy.

[NotCranky]

Back on those “green jobs”

The trainees are still in community colleges throughout the state, using financial aid to get up to speed. O.K. problem solved.

[afx114]

Meanwhile:

The largest residential solar rooftop program in U.S. history is on its way. Energy Secretary Steve Chu announced its arrival on Wednesday with a partial guarantee for a $344 million loan to help solar installers put solar panels on military housing and other buildings over the next five years.

California-based SolarCity will install up to 371 MW of solar equipment in up to 124 military bases and 33 states, the DOE said. The SolarStrong Project, which could see solar panels cropping up on as many as 160,000 rooftops, will cost more than $1 billion, SolarCity said..

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/doe-to-support-the-biggest-home-solar-rooftop-project-in-u-s/

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]So Allan, if you believe that Democrats supported the Iraq War just as much as Republicans, then where do you think that “soft on terrorists” comes from?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32250.html

I believe that Democrats are indeed more reluctant to go to war; and that Republican are indeed trigger happy.[/quote]

Brian: When did I accuse the Dems of being “soft” on terrorists?

You believe that Dems are more reluctant to go to war and yet you categorically ignore the Snopes.com link showing the contrary. How does that work? If you don’t like the info, just ignore it?

As far as the GOP being more trigger happy: Google just how interventionist Bill Clinton was during his time at the helm. I’m presuming you don’t actually know, or else you wouldn’t have made that assertion. As Neil Young would say, Bubba Clinton was a firm believer in Bush the Elder’s “kinder, gentler machine-gun hand”.

And you know that Rhodes Scholar Clinton was a BIG fan of torture, targeted assassinations and actually created the extraordinary rendition program, right?

For a little extra credit, do some research on Rich Mountain Aviation and Mena, Arkansas while Clinton was governor there. Slick Willie enjoyed covert operations WAY before he became Prez.

But, yeah, Dems are sweet, decent little souls in the main.

[briansd1]

Allan, true or not, there’s a perception that Democrats are soft on terrorists. It’s a political liability for Democrats and this liability constrains what they can do.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, true or not, there’s a perception that Democrats are soft on terrorists. It’s a political liability for Democrats and this liability constrains what they can do.[/quote]

Brian: Not to sound obtuse, but it constrains them, how?

Obama just passed the largest Defense budget in US history. He has dramatically ramped up the drone program in the AfPak region. Obviously, renditions continue, Gitmo remains open, and we’re running interdiction operations in places like Somalia, Yemen and Indonesia.

Clearly, the Dems aren’t soft on terrorism and I don’t see how they’re constrained.

Please explain.

[Author]

Posts