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

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I will agree with that. Telling them to bring it on wasn't helpful either.




I understand democracy fine. Where you are confused is that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it. Dean may have the right to say we can't win in Iraq but that doesn't mean that he should do it, or saying it is a good thing.

I may have the right to march down mainstreet screeming that all liberals are morally bankruptc, traitors and should be shot. But that does not mean that it would be helpful to our country if I did so.

I'm not kidding about my book recommendation from yesterday. You really need to read it. And to chill out.

It's been very amusing to watch both sides talk right by each other today.

You seriously need to wrap your head around the idea that Ty and Wonk (and I) just look at the world in a fundamentally different way from you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I cannot for the life of me figure out a) how this is responsive; or b) how it refutes what I said about the media. And then I thought, I'm wasting time with you. Come back when you're not so far off your game. You can be, and usually are, better than this.

Your point was that the media are whores in search of a story. If that were the case, one would think they would be, on the whole, equally critical no matter who was in office. Why then, was there not a constant drum beat of "Clinton Lied" when he said that the troops would be home by Christmas. One would expect that to be the case under your theory.

And I don't do strawman. Strawwomen, perhaps.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Simple factual question for you and bilmore: Have you read James Fallows' article in The Atlantic? Yes or no?

Yes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The Kurds and Shiites will get along as long as it is in their interests to do so. We need a longer view if Iraq is to succeed. For instance, what will be the effect of the Kurdish desire for an independent Kurdistan? That is far more important to them than to be part of Iraq, and I think everyone here knows that makes the Turks nervous. What will be the US position on an independent Kurdistan? Don't tell me the Turks will behave because they want into the EU; while that is true, the rest of the EU is growing increasingly disenchanted with the idea of Turkey in the EU and is likely to insist on a second-class status for Turkey. If Turkey agrees, will they have enough of a stake in EU membership to toe the line, especially in light of the increasing influence within Turkey of non-secular elements?

What will be the effect of Iran on the Shiites of Iraq? I don't have any read on that at all, but my gut says it won't be good for us. Between Iraq and a sympathetic Iran, what will be the amount of oil reserves controlled by those two? Will the Shiites of Iraq turn their backs on Iran to maintain the union with the Sunnis and Kurds imposed by a whim of the British after WWI ? Will the Kurds do the same to their brothers in Turkey?

All good questions.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your point was that the media are whores in search of a story. If that were the case, one would think they would be, on the whole, equally critical no matter who was in office. Why then, was there not a constant drum beat of "Clinton Lied" when he said that the troops would be home by Christmas. One would expect that to be the case under your theory.

And I don't do strawman. Strawwomen, perhaps.

Actually, his point was that the media is pro-whomever is in office.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm not kidding about my book recommendation from yesterday. You really need to read it. And to chill out.

It's been very amusing to watch both sides talk right by each other today.

You seriously need to wrap your head around the idea that Ty and Wonk (and I) just look at the world in a fundamentally different way from you.

You dissapoint me. This is a board for arguing politics. If we just accept that we look at the world differently that would be the end of the board. Join the fray if you want but we don't really need any mediators.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
You dissapoint me. This is a board for arguing politics. If we just accept that we look at the world differently that would be the end of the board. Join the fray if you want but we don't really need any mediators.

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?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Oh right - I forgot how hard the media held Clinton to task when he said the troops would be home by Xmas.

Club, what were you smoking from 1992 to 2000? The media beat the shit out of Clinton repeatedly. Whitewater was a NYT expose that they chased from New Hampshire through the end of his presidency. Maureen Dowd's Clinton-bashing columns won her a Pulitzer. "Wag the Dog" accusations when he bombed Iraq and sent cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan.

He had horrible press -- sometimes deservedly so, of course.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Club, what were you smoking from 1992 to 2000? The media beat the shit out of Clinton repeatedly. Whitewater was a NYT expose that they chased from New Hampshire through the end of his presidency. Maureen Dowd's Clinton-bashing columns won her a Pulitzer. "Wag the Dog" accusations when he bombed Iraq and sent cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan.

He had horrible press -- sometimes deservedly so, of course.

And that truly was the last time Maureen Dowd was funny.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
. . .as they are all based on an outdated and ultimately doomed vision of an ideal patriarchal family.

This is funny, since I'm actually a woman.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
And that truly was the last time Maureen Dowd was funny.

Oh, p'shaw, my dear. She was funny then, and she is funny now.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush's statements don't make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Bush's statements help encourage the troops.

I probably should scroll than post, but I do not think we can yet know this.

Overconfidence has played a big role in losing many wars; had Johnson in particular taken a more measured and strategic approach in Vietnam, and had he set attainable goals rather than pursuing outright and total victory, we might have had a much different outcome. Had Napolean decided to stop at Poland, he might have dominated Europe for a generation more. Had the Soviet Union been willing to negotiate reasonable terms early on in Afghanistan, the recent history of that country might be much less tragic.

We will know in ten years whether the President's confidence is overconfidence or justified. I, like many people, have become increasingly convinced that he focuses too much on the rosy scenarios and too little on the risk.

In the meantime, if the troops feel he is divorced from reality and not aware of their real situation, his statements may well be harmful. A good example is the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. That was simply outright regreatable in hindsight, though I have no trouble understanding and sympathizing the jubiliation at the time. Similarly, I am told that the Thanksgiving trip over there was poorly perceived, because the press was Bush with the troops having a big Thanksgiving dinner, at a time when most of the troops were not getting Turkey with all the fixings.

A certain amount of bravado is fine, and inspirational (as long as he doesn't behave like Dean in Iowa). But right now he is looking out of touch to me.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky

There are certain products individuals can't buy and certain products that are not for individual consumption. Certain people can't buy food so the government steps in and buys it for them. Defense is something that individuals can't buy individually so the government has to step in a buy it for the collective. But when a person can buy a product, and it is for individual consumption, then the choice should be left up to the person whether or not to buy the product. If they have a choice and it only affects them why should the government step in. All consumer products, including media, is included in this catagory. Can you not see that?

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, p'shaw, my dear. She was funny then, and she is funny now.

So, you'd say she's evenly matched with Linda Cohn in the fight to suck your dick?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, p'shaw, my dear. She was funny then, and she is funny now.

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.