Back in the election of 2008, John McCain was asked if he would support DADT and he said he would "if the generals said it was OK." Of course, this was before the GOP had to lick the boots of the homophobes in their base in order to win elections. Now Senator McCain has backed away from this and is against it....even though his own wife and daughter support the change! WTF??!!
Actually, the answer to this, once again, is THEY WANT HIM TO FAIL. The GOP knows that if President Obama is successful at doing anything, it will energize the base and sway independents back his way which is all he pretty much needs to win in 2012. It doesn't matter that the repeal of DADT has the support of the majority of the country. In fact, that's precisely why the GOP is trying to sabotage it. If it passes, people will be happy with the president and they don't want that.
The truly sad part about all of this is the number of good men and women we have lost over the years, who would help defend our nation, because of this policy. In so many ways, the GOP, who laughingly prides itself on standing firm on the defense of this nation is, is purposefully sabotaging our nation's security with this and the START treaty dithering. Why again?
"The single most important thing we can achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president" ----Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
29 comments:
>Actually, the answer to this, once again, is THEY WANT HIM TO FAIL.
As this seems to be your favorite saying of late, I have to ask: did you ever, even just a little bit, want Bush to fail?
My criteria for military service isn't that you are straight - just that you shoot straight!
No way, Hap. In fact, I rallied behind my president after 9-11. I supported him when he invaded Afghanistan. Six months later, when he said things like "bin Laden didn't matter" and he "didn't spend that much time on him," he began to lose me. But I stuck with him when he invaded Iraq. Then I started to see the same type of lies and deceit we saw with Johnson and Nixon. Worse, when it came out that the DoD wouldn't go all in when they had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, I knew that his goal was not our nation's security but the financial security of the oil and defense industry. There was also his daddy issues which drove him to invade Iraq.
Bush failing at these things as well as a whole host of others left our country in shambles. Why on earth would I want that? I mean, I want the government to succeed, not fail. I love this country a great deal and Bush's failure was disgusting and awful on just about every level.
Mark,
Has it occurred to you that some people consider Obama's stated goals and policies to be destructive to this nation and will leave this country in a shambles? And that their desire to see him fail is to keep that from happening, and not because of some personal dislike of the man?
Yes, it has occurred to me that this is the case with some of them. They are wrong. Worse, it is their policies that did (and will, if they are allowed again) cause the majority of our problems.
For the rest, though, it's the usual deal of winning the argument and never, under any circumstances, being wrong. About anything.
So you concede that you wanted Bush to fail at the implementation of the stuff you didn't like.
And yet you just can't figure out that other people might want Obama to fail at implementation of stuff they don't like. Why Mark? Arrogance? Hubris? Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people don't have the same thought processes as you, and the things that they value aren't necessarily the same things you value? (And that other people certainly don't perceive history the same way you do. Daddy issues? Dear god. Do you teach that drivel in a classroom?)
Hap, you're wordsmithing and doing the classic re-direct again.
Exactly what would you have me teach, Hap? That FDR's programs were largely failures when they weren't? That socialism in its various forms in this country are failures when they actually work? That when the financial system was more regulated there were more crises and not less? That the deregulation of the last 30 years have had no effect on the economy?
I'm not in the business of ignoring results when they don't suit my ideology. Show me the results of Bush's policies. How exactly were they successful? It's not an issue of thought processes. It's an issue of what has happened as a direct result of these ideologies. See, I have no problem cheering Harding's handling of the 1920-21 crisis with laissez faire economics. It worked at the time with the problems that were specific to that era. I have no problem cheering the success of it even though it is ideologically contrary to my views.
Can you do the same and stipulate that these same laissez faire policies will not work today given what we have seen in the way of financial crises in the last 30 years?
I'm not in the business of ignoring results when they don't suit my ideology.
Certainly not! A business tends to shed failed methodologies/processes.
You cling to them with a religious fervor.
>Hap, you're wordsmithing and doing the classic re-direct again.
No Mark, you are avoiding some very simple questions. You have conceded that you wanted Bush to fail at certain things because you felt those things would be bad for the country. I want Obama to fail at certain things for the exact same reason. Am I a horrible wingnut for desiring that? If so, then how are you not a festering moonbat for wanting Bush to fail? You can't have it both ways.
>Exactly what would you have me teach, Hap?
I'm asking, very spefically, if you teach your students about your belief that Bush's "daddy issues" had something to do with the Iraq war. You'll notice I mentioned "daddy issues" quite near to my question.
>Show me the results of Bush's policies. How exactly were they successful?
Where have I claimed Bush's policies were successful? You are aware that (successful, destructive) are not the only two choices available when assessing policies, right?
>See, I have no problem cheering Harding's handling of the 1920-21 crisis with laissez faire economics.
Can you tell me which laissez faire policies Harding instituted? I bet you are reading that straight off wikipedia and have no idea what policies those actually are. I don't know either - given your history though, it is very likely that you are just trying to establish your cred as super reflective.
>Can you do the same and stipulate that these same laissez faire policies will not work today given what we have seen in the way of financial crises in the last 30 years?
How generous of you! You have "cheered" the success of two years of laissez faire economics, so you say, and based on that I should claim that laissez faire policies won't work now? Based on nothing other than you were nice enough to cheer two years of laissez faire policies 90 years in the past! Apparently, reasoning and logic are not needed ot arrive at this position. Who knew? In any case: are you claiming that Bush policies were laissez faire policies in general? Cause boy, I'm really not seeing the medicare drug plan as laissez faire, for example. Mark - when is the last time laissez faire policies were really the norm in this country?
In so many ways, the GOP, who laughingly prides itself on standing firm on the defense of this nation is, is purposefully sabotaging our nation's security with this and the START treaty dithering.
First, not allowing openly gay soldiers, whether you agree or not, has no bearing on National Security. I doubt gay soldiers represent a significant portion of combat troops which couldn't be replaced if they had to be. I happen to agree that removing the DADT policy would be very low risk but this isn't a significant issue. It is nothing more than a political show for either side.
Second, the START treaty is being held up to address a much more critical National Security issue - our economy. Strategic Nuclear Arms are not a pressing threat. Unfunded government and the debt issues are seriously undermining this country to a much greater degree.
The GOP (for once) has their priorities correct - Obama and the democrats do not.
Hap, do you have trouble with English? Let me reprint what I wrote again.
Bush failing at these things as well as a whole host of others left our country in shambles. Why on earth would I want that? I mean, I want the government to succeed, not fail. I love this country a great deal and Bush's failure was disgusting and awful on just about every level.
McFly? Hello...(knock knock on the head). Do you get the fact that I did NOT want him to fail but he quite sadly did. So, cease with the wordsmithing. His actions caused bad things to happen in this country. Look at the results and what President Obama has to clean up after and, naturally, is now being blamed for. It's not that you want him to fail because you think it will be bad for this country. You want him to fail because then you will be wrong.
The good news is that even if you are you will be able to wiggle your way out of it. It's the pathology of your ideology and the people that follow it.
Now, I just admitted that laissez faire economics does work in certain situations. Can you say the same think of Keynesian economics? Of socialism?
Harding's policies worked at the time because of the environment of a post war country. There really was no call for a fiscal stimulus given the principal causes of the recession (early Fed bugs and shenanigans, massive increase in labor due to soldiers re-entering work force, labor losing power because of this glut). I may have called for a stimulus if I was around at the time, though, and I would've been wrong. See? It's not so hard to admit that.
Oh, and my source for was the American Presidency Series book on Harding with a dash of this:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Smiley.1920s.final
See my post today for how both TARP and the stimulus worked given the current economic environment.
Oh, and there's this which someone sent me a while back...don't agree with all of it but it is historically informative given the topic of Harding.
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b
>Hap, do you have trouble with English?
No, but I am enjoying your attempt to split hairs in order to have it both ways.
>Do you get the fact that I did NOT want him to fail but he quite sadly did.
Hrm. So when Bush tried to privatize Social Security, you didn't want him to fail at that? And when he failed, you were sad that he failed? Right. Care to revise your bullshit statement?
>It's not that you want him to fail because you think it will be bad for this country. You want him to fail because then you will be wrong.
And your knowledge of this comes from where? Trying to mind read again Mark?
>Now, I just admitted that laissez faire economics does work in certain situations. Can you say the same think of Keynesian economics? Of socialism?
Mark, this is equivilent to me saying "I just admitted that I stole candy as a kid. Therefore, you should admit that you beat your wife." The word "therefore" implies a relationship between the two things that does not exist. Similarly, the efficacy of laissez faire economics has nothing to do with the efficacy of Keynesian economics, or socialism. The reason, in my opinion, that Keynesian economics and socialism are poor policy choices is because they rely on flawed premises. In the case of Kenesianism, the flawed premise is that the government can allocate resources more efficiently than individuals can, or really, allocate resources efficiently at all. In the case of socialism, the flawed premise is that people will look out for some larger group of people (community, neighbors, whatever) before themselves. Those premises do not become more or less flawed because you "admitted" something.
>Harding's policies worked at the time because of the environment of a post war country.
Thanks for the link. You don't say which policies you are referring to, but I would imagine they are generally clustered around cutting spending, reducing taxes, and keeping regulatory uncertainty to a minimum. But you don't answer the key question - if those policies worked in the past, why won't they work today? You nebulously say, "well, back then, it was a post war country and there was lots of extra labor in the market." So? Why does that make such common sense policies (otherwise known as getting the hell out of the way) not work today?
Mark,
Sometimes it seems like you speak English as a second language. It's the only way to explain how you hear things so completely different than they are said.
OK, so think Bush failed, but you didn't want him to fail? Follow along with this then.
Bush had policies that he wanted to implement. He then implemented those policies. Viola! Bush successfully did what he wanted to do - he did not fail.
Now, you think that the results of him successfully implementing those policies was a failure for the country. Fine. But that is not what people are saying when they say they want Obama to fail.
See, Obama has policies that he wants to implement that people believe would be disastrous to the country, and they do not want him to implement those policies. Hence they want him to fail. As in not succeed in his stated intentions.
Since you think that Bush's policies as implemented were disastrous to the country, perhaps if asked, you would have said you did not want them to be implemented. Hence, you would have been wanting him to fail at his stated intentions.
Oh and just for the record, as you hold up John McCain (*chortle*) as the epitome of all things GOP... care to take a wild guess at who has been skewering "McCain’s endless backpedaling on 'don’t ask, don’t tell'?"
Right-wing nutjob Allahpundit at right-wing hate site Hot Air. You know, the one that used to be owned by "mashed up bag of meat" Michelle Malkin?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/02/joint-chiefs-chair-to-troops-if-you-dont-want-to-serve-with-gays-quit/
In some ways it's funny that you go through and cherry pick every stupidity you can find about the GOP and the Tea Party, and then proclaim such stupidities to be the center of both.
But in other ways it's really sad, because apparently you not only spread such BS, you actually fall for it yourself.
Guard Duck, they want him to fail even though they know the policies will be good for this country because, if he succeeds, then it's a win in the D column. The GOP doesn't want that. They operate in terms of winning and losing, as it appears you do, and not by doing what is best.
Hap, way to dodge all of Mark's questions. It's also good to see that Mark's main point about the right being insanely stubborn is proved to be true yet again. You will never admit that Keynesian economics has merits, will you? Even if evidence is clearly seen throughout history supporting this?
"Why does that make such common sense policies (otherwise known as getting the hell out of the way) not work today?"
Go see "Inside Job" for the answer to that one. Thanks for the recommendation, by the way, Mark. We really enjoyed it. Although, I don't know if "enjoy" is the right word. The government was out of the way and the massive greed of the private sector nearly destroyed us. "Getting the hell out of the way" means allowing Goldman Sachs, for example, tell customers to invest in CDOS while also betting against these same CDOS and making money off of it. That's one example of many that brought us to this point.
"So when Bush tried to privatize Social Security, you didn't want him to fail at that? And when he failed, you were sad that he failed? Right. Care to revise your bullshit statement?"
Honestly, I didn't have any serious thoughts about it one way or the other. I didn't get too much into depth about it because I know it wouldn't go anywhere and my mind was on AfPak and Iraq back then. It was a bad idea. Disappointment is more of an accurate way to describe how I felt about his ideas. I knew that if that money was made private it would be lost. Time has proved me to be correct, right? Where would that money be right now, Hap?
Brendan is right on the mark with his comment. This would be a big difference between the way I think and the way you think, Hap. I'd rather have the right thing done and be wrong. You (and others here) have no problem doing the wrong thing as long as you are magically proven "right" by some little tidbit of information that supports your pathology.
If all the deregulation of the financial sector had resulted in the utopian free market you believe is possible, I would have tipped my cap to you and said, well done. But it didn't happen that way and, instead, I get to enjoy the enormous frustration of people who think like you trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
I'm certain that many of you will refuse to see "Inside Job." Why? Because I recommended it (genetic fallacy?) so it must be liberal propaganda. Yet, it contains irrefutable facts as to why we have the problems we do today and why Hardings policies wouldn't work today.
I'm not certain that you understand the dimensions of the playing field today, Hap. The simple fact that our financial sector is so interconnected would be one reason why laissez faire would not work. And the fact that they simply can't be trusted due to greed would be another. Tess's point above is quite accurate. I suspect that this lack of understanding comes from you pathology regarding the government. Alter that and we might be able to get a little farther down the road to substantive solutions.
And, while I appreciate your feelings about Keynesian economics and socialism, that paragraph didn't contain one example of critical thought about either.
Wait a minute. I just told you what I and people like me think. And I get told I'm wrong and it's explained to me what I really think?
Wow. Just wow.
I just told you what I and people like me think. And I get told I'm wrong and it's explained to me what I really think?
What did you think you were - something other than a voice inside his head? Your position something other than a strawman that M could tear apart with the alacrity of a toothless chihuahua?
M and his dimwitted followers virtually NEVER actually listen to what they are told. The cognitive dissonance from that with what they believe is intolerable - so YOU get ignored so that THEIR vision of reality is unperturbed.
It's a fantasy ideology...
http://denbeste.nu/external/Harris01.html
...just like Al Qaeda.
>Time has proved me to be correct, right? Where would that money be right now, Hap?
Well, lets see - based on the value of the DOW, everyone would be down about 20%. Certainly not ideal, but not exactly out of money, now would they Mark? It all depends on which reality you prefer - the fantasy one where defined benefit retirement packages can last forever even when they operate at a loss, or defined contribution plans where the money in a retirement account is actually owned by the person retiring. One is sustainable, one isn't.
>Because I recommended it (genetic fallacy?)
You still don't get what a genetic fallacy is do you? To repeat a favorite mannerism of yours - read and review it again - maybe that will help.
>Honestly, I didn't have any serious thoughts about it one way or the other.
So you were just a passive observer in everything Bush did, and really had no opinions about things he did until after whatever he did failed. At which point, you were super disappointed. Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm going to do some mind reading and call bullshit - you are just trying to split hairs to try to avoid conceding that you wanted Bush to fail at some things.
>The simple fact that our financial sector is so interconnected would be one reason why laissez faire would not work.
Was our financial system not interconnected in the past? Do you have some metric by which this is measured? Or are you going with the good old "Mark's feeling"?
>And the fact that they simply can't be trusted due to greed would be another.
Was there some point in history when people in the financial services weren't greedy? When was this, and how do you define it?
>And, while I appreciate your feelings about Keynesian economics and socialism, that paragraph didn't contain one example of critical thought about either.
Are my premises wrong? That's the thing about premises Mark - their validity can be debated. So by all means debate them. Tell me what is wrong with them.
Aww, eaten post.
>Honestly, I didn't have any serious thoughts about it one way or the other. I didn't get too much into depth about it because I know it wouldn't go anywhere and my mind was on AfPak and Iraq back then.
So let me get this straight. In everything Bush did, foreign or domestic, you didn't even have an opinion on it before he attempted those things. It was only later when you said, "dang I'm glad that failed" or "dang, I'm glad that succeeded." Seriously? Color me.. skeptical.
In any case, your fellow travelers made no bones about wanting Bush to fail in certain things.
>Time has proved me to be correct, right? Where would that money be right now, Hap?
Actually, based on the DJIA, privately invested Soc Sec accounts would be down an average of 20% now, assuming they started at the top of the market in 2008. So no, they wouldn't be gone. So pick your poison - do you prefer defined benefit style plans that require an ever increasing number of taxpayers to fund it, or defined contribution plans that are based on real, tangible assets? Well, I know your answer to that one. :)
Regarding greed - was there some halcyon time in the past where people weren't motivated by greed or self interest?
>And, while I appreciate your feelings about Keynesian economics and socialism, that paragraph didn't contain one example of critical thought about either.
Oh - are my premises wrong? You don't seem to be interested in disputing them. Feel free to do so - that, at least, would be productive debate.
From the fantasy ideology article that DT linked to:
"What is common in such interactions is that the fantasist inevitably treats other people merely as props — there is no interest in, or even awareness of, others as having wills or minds of their own. The man who bores us with stories designed to impress us with his importance, or his intellect, or his bank account, cares nothing for us as individuals — for he has already cast us in the role that he wishes us to play: We are there to be impressed by him. Indeed, it is an error even to suggest that he is trying to impress us, for this would assume that he is willing to learn enough about us to discover how best we might be impressed. But nothing of the kind occurs. And why should it? After all, the fantasist has already projected onto us the role that we are to play in his fantasy; no matter what we may be thinking of his recital, it never crosses his mind that we may be utterly failing to play the part expected of us — indeed, it is sometimes astonishing to see how much exertion is required of us in order to bring our profound lack of interest to the fantasist’s attention."
Ouch!!!
How many time have we complained about Mark treating us exactly like this? Too many times to count.
Yet the little Nazi in his head keeps on burning. And his famed ability to read our minds accurately is still an unblemished rate of 0%.
"Color me.. skeptical."
Well, it's true. If the results had been different from my beliefs and I was wrong, great! So what? This would be a very big difference between me and many who post here. I don't mind being wrong if the results are for the best. From what I have seen so far, none of you really like being wrong...especially if it shows some sort of success due to a liberal or progressive policy. You will find something...attempt anything...say the most ridiculous things in the world...to shit stain anything that a Democrat does. They must FAIL!
I look at the results and how we got there. What went wrong? To me, it's completely obvious. Deregulation.
"was there some halcyon time in the past where people weren't motivated by greed or self interest?"
No, people have always been greedy and that's why we have the government...to protect us from force and fraud, right? So why won't you let them?
A Nazi, DT? Really? I guess I have no idea where to go with that one...wow.
I don't mind being wrong if the results are for the best.
And of course, what is "for the best" is strictly defined in accordance with YOUR beliefs. So you can never be wrong because any result that isn't in line with your beliefs cannot be "for the best".
QED
For once you actually are logically consistent.
The only fly in the ointment is with your presumption to always know what is "for the best". Kinda like knowing what is in EVERYONEs best interests.
A Nazi, DT? Really? I guess I have no idea where to go with that one...wow.
What fantasy world did you pull that from? WTF are you referring to?
DT, I think he meant ST.
It also seems that he thinks I was calling him a Nazi. I wasn't. I was merely pointing out something which has been pointed out innumerable times before: that his claims about what we really believe come not from things we actually say and do, but from some right-wing, supposedly fascist, strawman version of conservatives which exists only within his own mind, and not in the real world; one that's still burning bright.
So much for using a short reference to previous arguments. Just goes to show how well he assimilates our actual arguments into his long term memory; as in NOT!
I HATE having to be pedantic, but with Mark it's necessary—aaand a complete waste of time.
Actually, the answer to this, once again, is THEY WANT HIM TO FAIL.
And of course, none of the "Bush is Hitler" and "9/11 was an inside job" crowd wanted Bush to fail. Harry Reid didn't want Bush to fail when he said "this war is lost".
Post a Comment