So is Anti-Obama Fever Getting to Clinical Levels

[ideologyhunter]

Remember how hateful we libs were to W? How we got lectured to, by the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, for the depth of our hatred? How unfair we were to W, accusing him of mindless, deficit-exploding tax cuts, starting unnecessary wars, allowing policy to be set by the political advisors, allowing his v.p. to oversee the CIA's intelligence feeds, allowing his party's dereg mania to upset the world economy. Asserting that his State of the Union contained a lie about yellow uranium. Accusing him of ignoring explicit warnings that Al Queda would use jetliners against us. In retrospect ------

 

[SimpleDon]

Objection. I haven't seen any conservatives take this position. Rather, the position they take is that sometimes war is better than a bad deal. The liberal always-negotiate position is a very bad one--if you won't stand up for your position you're going to get walked all over. You have to be willing to fight in order to be taken seriously.

You seem to be objecting to my admittedly broad generalizations in one sentence and confirming them in the very next one. No, fighting a war is worse than making a bad deal. Especially the way that conservatives do war. Look at the failure to negotiate the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction instead of launching a poorly planned invasion with no effective planning for the occupation. You can't tell me that the war turned out better for us than a negotiated settlement would have been to let Iraq continue to not build weapons of mass destruction.

At what point will you start to really think about these things? Or is it sufficient for you to believe Bibi when he tells us that his crack intelligence apparatus has determined that the Iranians are just a year away from having the bomb, the same thing that Bibi's crack intelligence apparatus has been telling us for the last nine years? When does an element of doubt enter into your absolute surety?

Who you think is responsible for Iran going from a couple of hundred centrifuges to over 16 thousand? Whose watch did this happen on? On whose watch did North Korea build their atomic bombs after we stopped negotiating with them? Who was president when the Iranians were handed Iraq as a Shia ally instead of as a Sunni enemy? A president who apparently had no idea of the difference?

I fully understand why conservatives are so reluctant to negotiate. They are really bad at it. Who was not yet president when he negotiated with the Iranians to reward them for their terrorism to keep the embassy staff in captivity to avoid an October surprise that would cost him the election? Then as president illegally sponsored terrorists, who was it? Was it the same president who decided that the best way to respond the terrorist attack that killed 250 of my brother Marines by Iranian sponsored terrorists in Beirut was to invade an island that no one had ever heard of 5000 miles away?

These are examples of the foreign policies that conservatives want to bring back.

While some might see it as due to genetic traits most simply see it as a failing of the person without regard for whether it's due to genetics or not. Most people in poverty have gotten there by a long series of very poor choices. If you're going to keep making stupid choices you're going to be poor whether society helps out or not. Take some responsibility for your own condition and we'll be much more interested in helping.

So only some conservatives believe that people doomed to poverty because of congenital genetic traits and some others believe that the poor choose to be poor, but no matter which they believe conservatives feel absolved from any responsibility for causing or solving it.

If this makes you feel better then I am very sorry for you as a human being.

If you believe that the poor are in poverty mainly because of a long string of bad choices then why do you think that they make bad choices? And presumably why do the rich and the middle class make good choices?

Poverty is a purely economic condition. More of the poor work than the middle class or the rich, they work more hours and they work harder than anyone else. They earn less money for their work is the difference.

This is the wealthiest country in the world with the highest income per capita. Other countries with only 75% of the per person income that the US has have eliminated poverty for those who work. The only reason that we have widespread poverty is because of the incredible greed of the very wealthy and their cynical belief that the easiest way for them to earn more is that everyone else has to earn less.

Capitalism works best when everyone has to work for their money. It is not good when we hand people money for doing nothing whether it is welfare payments or it is inherited wealth. This means that we shouldn't be increasing the wealthy's income by intentionally decreasing everyone else's incomes, what we have been doing for the last thirty five years. Especially if it means that ever increasing numbers of people are put into poverty in order to increase the incomes of the wealthy.

The only way to do this is to increase the wages of the poor slowly to where there aren't any working poor left.

I know that you believe that this will result in widespread unemployment among the poor because that is what happens with involuntary wage increases while voluntary wage increases don't cause any problem with unemployment. This makes no sense, it requires money with a memory of where it comes from that acts differently depending on where it came from, whether from involuntary or involuntary wage increases in this case.

But it doesn't matter, we are endangering our economy by the income inequality that we are using to increase profits and the income of the wealthy and to decrease everyone else's income. There is no support for your belief that paying more to the poor will result in widespread unemployment among the poor in either empirical studies or in the economic theory. But even if it were to occur then we still have to do it, raise the incomes of the poor.

 

[Frikki]

Which is why we are under Soviet control now due to the negotiations between the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I didn't say you always have to fight, just that if you never fight you're going to be walked all over.

We did fight Russia. What do you think Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan were???

When did you sign up to fight so America would not get walked all over? Or did you mean that you are selflessly willing to send other people to do the things you are not willing to do? Because aside from you posting here your contribution is zero.

 

[Axulus]

I didn't say you always have to fight, just that if you never fight you're going to be walked all over.

We did fight Russia. What do you think Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan were???

Mistakes. There was no necessary rationale for the USA to have to fight in those countries.

Korea turned out fine. You think it would have been better for the world for Korea to have been united under Kim Il-Sung's regime?

South Vietnam was invaded by the North. Do you think the US should never help stop other countries from being invaded? It wasn't clearly wrong to help South Vietnam defend itself from northern aggression.

 

[bilby]

Mistakes. There was no necessary rationale for the USA to have to fight in those countries.

Korea turned out fine. You think it would have been better for the world for Korea to have been united under Kim Il-Sung's regime?

Do you think that the continued existence of the Kim regime(s) in North Korea was the intended outcome of US intervention in Korea?

Korea didn't so much 'turn out fine', as 'turned out not to be the total debacle Vietnam and Afghanistan were'.

South Vietnam was invaded by the North. Do you think the US should never help stop other countries from being invaded? It wasn't clearly wrong to help South Vietnam defend itself from northern aggression.

Do you think that the US intervention in Vietnam stopped South Vietnam from being invaded by the North?

Loren's assertion was "if you never fight you're going to be walked all over". Given that when you DID fight, you were walked all over in two of his three examples (and barely managed a stalemate in the other), it seems that never fighting might have been a better strategy - the result would be basically similar, but without as many needless deaths.

 

[Axulus]

Do you think that the continued existence of the Kim regime(s) in North Korea was the intended outcome of US intervention in Korea?

Korea didn't so much 'turn out fine', as 'turned out not to be the total debacle Vietnam and Afghanistan were'.

The north was trying to take control of the south against the south's will. When there is that level of polarization in society, I think it best for the country to split. The outcome was acceptable - there was no legitimacy in the south taking over the north, just as there was no legitimacy in the north taking over the south.

Do you think that the US intervention in Vietnam stopped South Vietnam from being invaded by the North?

No, but hindsight is 20/20. I'm saying at the time that the north was initiating aggression against the south, the south which was friendly toward the US and the north highly anti-US, which had no desire to be taken over by the north and had many willing to die to defend itself from northern take-over, it was not at all clear that the US shouldn't have helped the south defend itself, especially considering that the north was getting aid by US enemies Russia and China. Now, of course it became a huge debacle with many deaths and many atrocities committed by everyone. Yes, deaths would've been far less for everyone and harm far lower had the south surrendered immediately and with no help from the US. But, at the time, it wasn't at all clear that the conflict would be a long and bloody one with the south as the eventual loser anyway.

Furthermore, consider that had the US not helped South Vietman, simply let it be taken over by the north, other countries in the world who were deciding whether to align itself with the east vs. west, with more of a communist approach vs capitalist approach, would realize that the US will not come to its aid during a time of need should it experience communist aggression and therefore would be more likely to be swayed toward communism when threatened and outgunned, and threats and aggression would have a lower future cost knowing the US would be unlikely to intervene. The so called domino theory was a legitimate concern, and not an easy one to simply declare that it should've been ignored.

By far the biggest mistake was not pulling out of Vietnam much sooner. My guess is that it was driven in large part by sunk coat fallacy (all those people can't just have died for nothing) and delusions of American exceptionalism (admitting defeat was embarassing and would reduce perceptions of US invulnerability). All irrational methods to make decisions which has caused much loss of life.

Getting involved in the first place, with the info, facts and circumstances available at the time, was far less clear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to be objecting to my admittedly broad generalizations in one sentence and confirming them in the very next one. No, fighting a war is worse than making a bad deal. Especially the way that conservatives do war. Look at the failure to negotiate the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction instead of launching a poorly planned invasion with no effective planning for the occupation. You can't tell me that the war turned out better for us than a negotiated settlement would have been to let Iraq continue to not build weapons of mass destruction.

You're confirming my objection with liberals. While I do agree Bush blew it badly that doesn't make peace always the right choice. We have a name for those who always choose the negotiated solution: Doormat.

Who you think is responsible for Iran going from a couple of hundred centrifuges to over 16 thousand? Whose watch did this happen on? On whose watch did North Korea build their atomic bombs after we stopped negotiating with them? Who was president when the Iranians were handed Iraq as a Shia ally instead of as a Sunni enemy? A president who apparently had no idea of the difference?

Neither of these situations have good solutions. The only question is which solution is the least bad.

While some might see it as due to genetic traits most simply see it as a failing of the person without regard for whether it's due to genetics or not. Most people in poverty have gotten there by a long series of very poor choices. If you're going to keep making stupid choices you're going to be poor whether society helps out or not. Take some responsibility for your own condition and we'll be much more interested in helping.

So only some conservatives believe that people doomed to poverty because of congenital genetic traits and some others believe that the poor choose to be poor, but no matter which they believe conservatives feel absolved from any responsibility for causing or solving it.

The only solution is education and you know what they say about the horse and water.

Conservatives go too far on putting the burden on the people, liberals go too far on putting the burden on society.

If you believe that the poor are in poverty mainly because of a long string of bad choices then why do you think that they make bad choices? And presumably why do the rich and the middle class make good choices?

By far the biggest factor is how far in the future they look at the consequences.

For example, from a thread on here a while back a poor couple that was having another baby because they couldn't afford condoms. Having unprotected sex when you don't want a kid is a horrible choice. Unprotected sex at a minimum costs something over $1k/fuck.

Poverty is a purely economic condition. More of the poor work than the middle class or the rich, they work more hours and they work harder than anyone else. They earn less money for their work is the difference.

If it were purely economic it would be solved by giving them money. In practice those in poverty who get a windfall usually end up back in poverty because the fundamental problem that put them in poverty remains.

This is the wealthiest country in the world with the highest income per capita. Other countries with only 75% of the per person income that the US has have eliminated poverty for those who work. The only reason that we have widespread poverty is because of the incredible greed of the very wealthy and their cynical belief that the easiest way for them to earn more is that everyone else has to earn less.

For those who work. Note that most people in poverty in this country either do not work or do not work many hours.

The only way to do this is to increase the wages of the poor slowly to where there aren't any working poor left.

Yeah--we would have fewer working poor and more non-working poor. Furthermore, the non-working poor would have basically no path out of poverty. Bad idea.

I know that you believe that this will result in widespread unemployment among the poor because that is what happens with involuntary wage increases while voluntary wage increases don't cause any problem with unemployment. This makes no sense, it requires money with a memory of where it comes from that acts differently depending on where it came from, whether from involuntary or involuntary wage increases in this case.

Raising wages always causes a reduction in demand for labor. Whether this translates to actual unemployment depends on what the demand level is. If the demand is 105% of capacity then cutting the demand by 5% by raising wages simply lowers it to 100% and thus causes no unemployment. The same increase in another field where the demand was 100% and now is 95% means 5% of the workers in the field are unemployed.

 

[funinspace]

Texas Rep Gohmert officially doubles down on nutter stupidity:
http://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398216

Certainly, I can understand these concerns. When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned. We have seen people working in this administration use their government positions to persecute people with conservative beliefs in God, country, and notions such as honor and self-reliance.
<snip>
Once I observed the map depicting ‘hostile,’ ‘permissive,’ and ‘uncertain’ states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution. When the federal government begins, even in practice, games or exercises, to consider any U.S. city or state in 'hostile' control and trying to retake it, the message becomes extremely calloused and suspicious.

Such labeling tends to make people who have grown leery of federal government overreach become suspicious of whether their big brother government anticipates certain states may start another civil war or be overtaken by foreign radical Islamist elements which have been reported to be just across our border. Such labeling by a government that is normally not allowed to use military force against its own citizens is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as 'hostile,' as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them. The map of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change, and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states.”

At least there are people in the comments section laughing at the talking nuts. But geesh, the nutty commenters

One funny thing these wingnuts do say is that we should move the soldiers to the border to secure it. But apparently they don’t want our military doing exercises in our country out of fear they may declare martial law. So they want the military to be operationally active in our country, albeit at the border area, but not to practice war in our country. Awesome logic there, somewhere….

 

[ronburgundy]

I think this guy from the link summed it up best:

"Your letter pandering to idiots ... has left me livid," former state Rep. Todd Smith wrote Abbott. "I am horrified that I have to choose between the possibility that my Governor actually believes this stuff and the possibility that my Governor doesn't have the backbone to stand up to those who do."

Ironically, after winning 8 terms, Todd Smith lost his seat in the Texas House in 2012 due to not pandering enough to those same "idiots". Although staunchly conservative and rather far right himself, he simply was not fascist enough for the Texas voters who didn't think his voter ID bill went far enough to destroy democracy and people's basic rights.