The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
1856? How about since the beginning.

That was the beginning, Spank. I believe that the GOP was founded in 1856, and that Lincoln was their second Presidential candidate.

The Deomcratic party evolved from a party founded in or around 1832, IIRC.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is funny, since I'm actually a woman.

Show us your tits!

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
No, she was sharp and on-point then, and now, she's unfortunately spouting nonsense half the time and just bitter-sounding (and I hate it when people say women sound bitter - it's such an easy bs insult...but in this case it is true...and at least I didn't say shrill or harpy-like). Honestly, I think she is out of her depth commenting on foreign affairs - she did much better with bedroom (or couch, or office) affairs.

She doesn't strike me as bitter at all. I agree that she is probably more knowledgable about people and their motivations than she is about foreign affairs, but then again she's attacking the administration because of what she sees as its hubris and arrogance. I don't think that she's ever pretended to be the female Tom Friedman (who annoys me, but whatever) without the cheesey moustache.

If I didn't know better, I might think that you thought she was "sharp and on-point" when she was bashing Bill then and "spouting nonsense" now when she bashes Dubya simply because you are (and it still pains me to think of it, btw) a [sigh] Republican.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let me rephrase, then. It's funny how the arguments that you, Bilmore and Club present are as completely predictable as they are ludicrous, as they are all based on an outdated and ultimately doomed vision of an ideal patriarcal family. You guys are preprogramed to see the world only through a narrow perspective.

However, proponents of that worldview have become very good over the past 30 years at selling to America. Liberals, are, however, finally catching on and catching up. I only hope we do so before you manage to get us all killed.

Better?

Ideal Patriarcal family? What does that mean. I guess I should I should have said before that this is way to general. Be Specific. And what is the narrow perspective I see the world.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
Yes and no. I prefer limiting government's role where it is not necessary, but there are social goods we have determined will be government funded that do not need to be. Education, healthcare for the indigent, public works projects ranging from subways and roads to urban renewal - all have become collective efforts. Saving Chrysler was a collective effort, too.

However, I worry that there is much to fear from government involvement, and particularly so in the media, and I also believe the media is different because of the first amendment. Media is a place where it is particularly dangerous for government to go.

I personally think government involvement in education shares some of the dangers, and that it is essential to have a separate private school system as an alternative and to develop new ideas.

If you notice before I said that government steps in when either the individual can't buy the product because they are poor or for some other reason (food stamps, healthcare, education) or the collective needs to purchase the product becasuse the product can only be purchased and used by the collective (infrastructure, National Defense, court system, state department, police etc.). But something that can be bought by the individual for individual consumption should always be left to the market (food, clothing, baseball equipment, TVs. The only exception to that rule is when there is a natural monopoly situation so the government has to step and control pricing (water, electicity, Gas).

Media is a product consumed by an individual and paid for by an individual so intervention is not necessary. Of course you need regulations on the invidual business like no slander etc. but the government should not manipulate the market like messing with production, consumption pricing etc. Of all consumer products, Media is actually the one consumer product where I fear government intervention above all others.

Where do you disagree with this statement?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That was the beginning, Spank. I believe that the GOP was founded in 1856, and that Lincoln was their second Presidential candidate.

The Deomcratic party evolved from a party founded in or around 1832, IIRC.

S_A_M

1856 - John Fremont? Dems - Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson - opinoins vary. But people have been sacrificing policy for political gain since the beginning of the Republic.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
1856 - John Fremont? Dems - Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson - opinoins vary. But people have been sacrificing policy for political gain since the beginning of the Republic.

There was a nice history in the NYT Mag a couple of weeks ago, apparently cribed from wikipedia. Anyway, depends on whether you mean founded by name or practice, as the GOP grew out of the whigs, whicch were founded earlier.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ideal Patriarcal family? What does that mean. I guess I should I should have said before that this is way to general. Be Specific. And what is the narrow perspective I see the world.

The point is that your conservatism stems not from the specific but from the generalities. As does my liberalism.

The narrow perspective is that you view the world as one in which things must be judged morally, black and white, right and wrong, which, in combination with a need to recognize authority, makes it difficult for you to accept alternate perspectives and viewpoints.

It is not much a retort to call me a moral relativist, by the way.

What I'm saying is that a lot of the things you attempt to throw in the face of liberals are things that provoke the response "so what" from us, and vice versa, because we simply look at the world differently.

I really think you should read Lakoff's book. It weighs in at almost 500 pages; I'm not going to be able to adequately capture it in more than general terms here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226467716

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by baltassoc
The point is that your conservatism stems not from the specific but from the generalities. As does my liberalism.

The narrow perspective is that you view the world as one in which things must be judged morally, black and white, right and wrong, which, in combination with a need to recognize authority, makes it difficult for you to accept alternate perspectives and viewpoints.

It is not much a retort to call me a moral relativist, by the way.

What I'm saying is that a lot of the things you attempt to throw in the face of liberals are things that provoke the response "so what" from us, and vice versa, because we simply look at the world differently.

I really think you should read Lakoff's book. It weighs in at almost 500 pages; I'm not going to be able to adequately capture it in more than general terms here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226467716

Spanky can't read that right now. He is reading Collapse or he is getting left out of the museum tour.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

Paint on WPA buildings dried!

[Not Bob]

• On the playground, discussion turned to war critics in America. "I've always respected John Murtha as a patriot and a friend of the military," said first-grader Abdul Zeki. "So I was somewhat surprised that he has taken the Jane Fonda position on the war."

Grade-School Children Invite Marines to Reunion (from The Baghdad Post).

(Slate's take on the fake news stuff)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
Does anyone have any interest in talking about what to do in Iraq, without resort to issues of why we are in Iraq or what we should or shouldn't be talking about?

My view, still in formation, is this: disengagement in the short term is not an option, because we have set in motion a chain of events that heavily depends on our presence for a modicum of stability.

However, there are several dangers to continued engagement on the same terms, including most importantly being drawn into a potential civil war. The worst case scenario for me in Iraq is a three way war between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds with shifting alliances and us being perceived as taking sides. I believe that there is a significant danger that the new, ostensibly democratic regime will have many pressures on it to become more autocratic as it tries to fend off civil war.

I think we should be considering encouraging a plebiscite on separation with the idea being that Iraqis would make their own decision, and would either decide to stay together, steeling thunder from those advocating civil war, or decide to part, eliminating the necessity for a war to force a parting. Right now, the Sunnis will continue to have emotional appeal for the notion that they have been shut out and need to force their voice through military means if necessary.

I also think we should be looking for increased internationalization even if it means compromising control over what may go on militarily, politically and economically in the country - even if moving towards a fully Iraqi police force is a long shot, replacing some of our troops with forces from elsewhere in the region (Pakistan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?) is essential, and needs to be a first level diplomatic goal. The fact that other countries are pulling troops rather than replacing ours is not a good sign, and we need a renewed push in this area.

Finally, I'm not sure traditional military units are appropriate for this action in its current form; Iraq needs internal police structures more than military structures, and one of te great ongoing tragedies in developing countries historically has been the use of military rather than police to maintain order. I think we should be reviewing creative solutions for replacing traditional military units with police volunteers.

And I would judge our political leaders a year from now on success based on whether they are able to diversify the forces in Iraq, bringing home significant traditional military forces and shifting the burden in Iraq to other countries and to other types of forces. Not because I want our troops home (though I do), but because I believe this disengagement will lead to more long term stability. I would also judge them based on whether or not there is one or more governments in Iraq that are stable and have legitimacy, and on whether any remaining terrorist attacks are focused on us as occupiers or on other ethnic groups as virtually inevitable ethnic strife.

You have some interesting ideas. However, I don't know that Balkanization of Iraq will work in the long run, for two reasons. First, Iran and Turkey will definitely not back an independent Kurdistan for fear of infecting the Kurds in their own countries. Second, divvying up Iraq will be complicated by the fact that oil isn't equally distributed, nor is arable land. There will be too much argument over compensating the regions tha lack resources.

I agree that the need for political support is great right now, but I don't think that strong institutions can be built without the muscle to back them up. The Iraqi military and police force is making some progress. However, I don't think they are ready to shoulder the burden of maintaining order without US military support. Add to that some evidence that certain elements within the Iraqi police force seem to be using their power to oppress the Sunni majority in some towns and it becomes pretty clear to me that we can't back out yet.

I would like to see some use of international Arab forces to supplement US military. I don't know that this is going to be achievable without increasing at least the perception of Balkanization, though. I don't know that the sects will be able to or willing to cooperate, no matter how much it's necessary to stabilize the country.

But you do have some interesting ideas.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Open debate where the leader of a party and US Senators are saying we are fucked in a miltary action- Please find me a cite of when this has happened before. No one is saying it is illegal- it is horribly irresponsible. Again, one cite where this happened in WW II Korea, or even, I bet Vietnam.

Eugene McCarthy essentially campaigned on the "Get out of Vietnam, it's a millstone around our neck" strategy in 1968. McGovern's campaign had similar elements to it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you saying I am wrong? If Bush decides the US will stay what can the Congress, the Senate or the Courts do?

Well, among other things, the Congress can withdraw the authorization to engage militarily. Without a formal declaration of war, Bush's ability to lawfully remain in Iraq is limited. In addition, Congress can decide not to appropriate funds for any military action in Iraq.

You are generally familiar with the way our government works, aren't you?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Does it make it less helpful when the opposition party is "debating" by making statements in which it really does not believe because it can't figure out any other way to get votes?

Not necessarily. The Republicans have been lying about tax "reform" and the estate tax for decades now and they seem to be gaining a great deal of ground from the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand their manipulation of the truth.