I agree that the Obama administration has accomplished some good things, and is far far better than what the McCain administration would have probably done. However, I am not excited about what he might accomplish if he doesnt have to worry about his future electibility. Will we get the Obama that pushes for gay rights and fights anti-intellectualism OR will we get the Obama that assassinates his own people and expandes our wars on drugs/terror?
Okay, here's my assessment on the above, as it relates to Obama.
Obama has probably always been for gay rights. He was made to toe the party line in the last election in order to win office, but tie me to a fishing line and call me Bob if he hasn't always (or for quite some time) had strong views that the way this country has treated its gay population in the past has been tragic. What was termed an "evolution" of his philosophy was probably more like a slow unveiling. As a result, I can all but guarantee you that he will be as strong a champion of gay rights during his second term as he has been this last year, if not stronger.
Regarding anti-intellectualism, of course he's going to continue to fight it. He's an educator by nature (and it's been really cool to see both him and President Clinton go to work recently on doing their best to teach the country a thing or two), so I expect this will continue.
Regarding "the Obama that assassinates his own people", I'm going to assume you're speaking to the larger issue of a President who has sometimes favored military practicality over civil rights. It is unfortunate, yes, and it makes me angry that Obama has let that happen. But, frankly, as someone who watched the poorly-kept secrets of the Bush administration unfold, what we've seen from Obama pales in comparison. I realize this comes off as a thin attempt at justification, but there's nothing better I can offer. It's a shame, but it's not going to keep me from electing Obama - not by a long shot.
Regarding the war on drugs, I believe that public sentiment is increasingly against it. But this is really dangerous turf to reverse policy on. You need to understand that, politically, there is a difference between defining policy and reversing it. The war on drugs defined policy - it became an issue on the national stage, and policy was created to deal with it. But reversing policy is dangerous, because it not only sends those who supported the original policy into a tizzy (and the people who will be outraged over an end or scaling back in the war on drugs are some of the most reliable voters in the country - older religious conservatives), it also sends the message that we were handling the issue wrong, and that never plays well. It's campaign attack fodder at its most effective; you can just picture Romney on the debate stage accusing President Obama of "waving the white flag at the drug cartels" or "abandoning our nation's children to drug dealers".
If you're the Obama administration, an issue like the above (the war on drugs) is something you wait until your second term to deal with. It's well-suited to this because a) it's something that the executive branch has a lot of power over, so a lot of action can be taken to dismantle it without being forced to go through congress; b) it's an issue that the public is slowly changing its own stance on, so the longer you wait the less calamitous it will be to change; and c) it's an issue that would affect future electability of the President, but not necessarily the electability of the next Democratic candidate for the Presidency. For instance, if Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2016 after the Obama administration has ended the war on drugs, she can tailor her position on the issue to whatever will get her elected, and can plausibly claim that she doesn't necessarily support Obama's decisions on the issue. It also isn't Presidency-defining enough to prevent her from running in support of Obama's legacy if it turns out that she needs to make fighting drugs part of her campaign platform.
Its scary that he would hide those things until after the election when he doesnt have to worry anymore.
Why is that scary? What is frightening isn't that he has "hid" them (since he hasn't really hidden what he'd like to see happen); what's frightening is that he is essentially forced to keep these views on the sidelines in order to remain politically viable. Political change does not happen at a candidate level. Electing a liberal President will not make the country more liberal. Electing an educated President will not make the country better educated. Rather, a more liberal country is more likely to be okay putting a liberal candidate in office. If you want to change the country, you can't say, "Alright, let's start at the top." You have to target the hearts and minds of the voters first.
Whats happened to that movie director that some blame for the middle east mess? Has he been released? If hes still being held with no charges then that scares me.
I assume you're talking about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. As far as I know, he was never held without charges. What is your source?
" he is essentially forced to keep these views on the sidelines in order to remain politically viable"
Because if the country saw his real views he would lose. A good percentage of the country doesnt agree with him on Gay marriage,illegal immigration etc. The polls are showing that this race is far from decided. Gallop-tied,Rassmussen-tied. These debates will decide the election and that may not be good for him as one of his greatest accomplishments is his Health care policy and the country is clearly divided on it. Unemployment is high, gas/food is high, consumer confidence down,international scene a complete mess.
This Libya event is a big mess and he looks incompetent and i think it will be "Jimmy Carter" moment. His press secretaty comes out and says terrorism but our president along with Susan Rice are on tv saying its the film that caused it (see univision for Obama). New information was just released that the seals killed where at a second location and clearly dispute the spontaneous protest. The original story doesnt pass the smell test.
Every Democrat i talk too says Obama is a genius and yet every one would elect Bill Clinton again if they could. Some have hoped that Hillary had challenged him in the primary. His approval rating is less than 50%. Every day i hear how Romney has no chance from the left media and yet they could be in for a real suprise.
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) has similiar views and is a professor at Harvard (should qualify as brilliant) and she got trounced in her first debate with Scott Brown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because if the country saw his real views he would lose.
He might, yes.
A good percentage of the country doesnt agree with him on Gay marriage,illegal immigration etc.
Sure.
The polls are showing that this race is far from decided. Gallop-tied,Rassmussen-tied.
FiveThirtyEight has Obama at a 76.1% chance of winning the election. While the race isn't over, it would take a major shift of public opinion to give Romney supporters any reason to feel encouraged about his chances.
These debates will decide the election and that may not be good for him as one of his greatest accomplishments is his Health care policy and the country is clearly divided on it. Unemployment is high, gas/food is high, consumer confidence down,international scene a complete mess.
This Libya event is a big mess and he looks incompetent and i think it will be "Jimmy Carter" moment. His press secretaty comes out and says terrorism but our president along with Susan Rice are on tv saying its the film that caused it (see univision for Obama). New information was just released that the seals killed where at a second location and clearly dispute the spontaneous protest. The original story doesnt pass the smell test.
Yeah, you really have no idea what's going to end up being important, I think.
Every Democrat i talk too says Obama is a genius and yet every one would elect Bill Clinton again if they could. Some have hoped that Hillary had challenged him in the primary. His approval rating is less than 50%.
Do you believe that's uncommon? Also, are you interested in comparing Obama and Romney's likeability/approval ratings?
Every day i hear how Romney has no chance from the left media and yet they could be in for a real suprise.
Sure. Also, did you really just use the words "left media"?
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) has similiar views and is a professor at Harvard (should qualify as brilliant) and she got trounced in her first debate with Scott Brown.
Yeah...no one really thinks that except the hardcore right.
Look, you're obviously a pretty staunch partisan. That's fine. So am I. But you're sort of all over the place. You're using the shotgun method here. How about toning it back, maybe? You're not really backing up your points at all (whether you can't back them up or you're just not giving yourself room to, I'm not sure).
Right now, a lot of what you're saying looks like, "I don't care what the facts say, I maintain that my favored outcome may still come to pass!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because if the country saw his real views he would lose.
The same is true of ANY candidate on a national level. Between the primary and general election you either conform to a very narrow range of ideologies or you don't get elected. The fact is that the parties are so close together that turning off 1-2% of voters is an electoral death sentence so you can't do that.
The polls are showing that this race is far from decided. Gallop-tied,Rassmussen-tied.
On a national level yes. In the elecoral college no. There's no reasonable outcome here where romney wins.
These debates will decide the election and that may not be good for him as one of his greatest accomplishments is his Health care policy and the country is clearly divided on it.
But Romney can't pound him on it because Romneycare is essentially the same thing. If the republicans had put up Ron Paul they could.
Unemployment is high, gas/food is high, consumer confidence down,
Yup
international scene a complete mess.
Oh come off it. The middle east has always been a mess.
This Libya event is a big mess and he looks incompetent
No he doesn't. The idea that libya wouldn't have happened under a different president is a complete fantasy. There's a self serving, puerile and disingenuous hue and cry of WEAK and INCOMPENT! every time something goes wrong, no matter how far outside of the sphere of the presidents influence it is.
Every Democrat i talk too says Obama is a genius and yet every one would elect Bill Clinton again if they could. Some have hoped that Hillary had challenged him in the primary. His approval rating is less than 50%. Every day i hear how Romney has no chance from the left media and yet they could be in for a real suprise.
Everything that's not fox news is not the left media.
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) has similiar views and is a professor at Harvard (should qualify as brilliant) and she got trounced in her first debate with Scott Brown.
Charisma: Not a good dump state for politicians.
" he is essentially forced to keep these views on the sidelines in order to remain politically viable"
Because if the country saw his real views he would lose. A good percentage of the country doesnt agree with him on Gay marriage,illegal immigration etc. The polls are showing that this race is far from decided. Gallop-tied,Rassmussen-tied. These debates will decide the election and that may not be good for him as one of his greatest accomplishments is his Health care policy and the country is clearly divided on it. Unemployment is high, gas/food is high, consumer confidence down,international scene a complete mess.
His personal views don't matter as much as the policy that he implements. The areas of this country that oppose his views are mostly not voting for him already.
This Libya event is a big mess and he looks incompetent and i think it will be "Jimmy Carter" moment. His press secretaty comes out and says terrorism but our president along with Susan Rice are on tv saying its the film that caused it (see univision for Obama). New information was just released that the seals killed where at a second location and clearly dispute the spontaneous protest. The original story doesnt pass the smell test.
Not sure where your getting the idea that Libya is making Obama look bad. Everything I have seen has come out in support of Obama and made Romney look like an unprepared jackass. Obama got a jump in the polls from it. He is handling it well, and for the first time in a long time we have non-dictator allies in the middle east.
Every Democrat i talk too says Obama is a genius and yet every one would elect Bill Clinton again if they could. Some have hoped that Hillary had challenged him in the primary. His approval rating is less than 50%. Every day i hear how Romney has no chance from the left media and yet they could be in for a real suprise.Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) has similiar views and is a professor at Harvard (should qualify as brilliant) and she got trounced in her first debate with Scott Brown.
I will need to watch it at some point, but a quick google search of headlines I notice how there are ones about Warren winning the debates (Reddit, so not really reliable at all) and nothing about Brown besides his herritage comments.
Even reading a few top articles, the only thing they seem to be talking about Scott Brown about it is how negative he attacked her for her Native American heritage. Not sure that is going to win him any votes.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding "the Obama that assassinates his own people", I'm going to assume you're speaking to the larger issue of a President who has sometimes favored military practicality over civil rights.
Just to clarify, I was actually specifically talking about President Obama's asassinations of his own people. But if you wanna go with the general rather than the specific, that works for me too.
Regarding the war on drugs, I believe that public sentiment is increasingly against it. But this is really dangerous turf to reverse policy on. You need to understand that, politically, there is a difference between defining policy and reversing it. The war on drugs defined policy - it became an issue on the national stage, and policy was created to deal with it. But reversing policy is dangerous, because it not only sends those who supported the original policy into a tizzy (and the people who will be outraged over an end or scaling back in the war on drugs are some of the most reliable voters in the country - older religious conservatives), it also sends the message that we were handling the issue wrong, and that never plays well. It's campaign attack fodder at its most effective; you can just picture Romney on the debate stage accusing President Obama of "waving the white flag at the drug cartels" or "abandoning our nation's children to drug dealers".
Sure, it might not be wise politically to reverse the unpopular War on Drugs. But why does that mean it is good to expand it? And what of the expansion of the War on Terror? I eagerly await the day that both Drugs and Terror shows up on a battleship to sign a peace treaty and this whole farce can be over with, but then I remember that Drugs are inanimate and Terror isnt an actual physical thing. I get your point, Obama isnt the horrible president that his detractors make him out to be. But, to claim that he is some liberal champion fighting for our best interests is delusional, in my opinion.
Regarding "the Obama that assassinates his own people", I'm going to assume you're speaking to the larger issue of a President who has sometimes favored military practicality over civil rights.Just to clarify, I was actually specifically talking about President Obama's asassinations of his own people. But if you wanna go with the general rather than the specific, that works for me too.
Look, I haven't got a dog in this fight: I'm going to vote how I'll vote (pretty obvious to anyone who's read my posts up till now) and whatever is said in an RPG discussion thread won't change my mind.
HOWEVER:
When did Comrade Obama assassinate his own people? We can talk about whether targeted killings work on a strategic level, and the resulting collateral damage. We can talk about how Comrade Obama dropped all the highfalutin' rhetoric once he was elected to office, and choose expediency in favor of hope. Those are both actually conversations I would love see in the national media.
But whatever orders he's given, I don't think Comrade Obama has assassinated any of his own people with his own two hands.
well, there's US citizen Anwar Al-awlaki targeted in a drone strike in Yemen. He was allegedly involved with Al-qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. One could argue that the fourth amendment doesnt apply to him and that he deserved to die without due process of the law due to his alleged rhetoric. But, even if you scratch him, there was Anwar's 16 year old son (also a US citizen), Abdulrahman Al-awlaki, who was killed in a seperate strike while he searched for his father's body, presumably to bury him.
Edit- But no, Hitdice, he hasnt actually asassinated anyone with his own two hands, as far as I know. The world would be a much different place if thats how we did warfare though. We would now be ready for the debates featuring a cyborg Bruce Lee in a debate grudge match with Brock Lesnar on bath salts. Live from Madison Square Garden, only on pay-per-view.
Thejeff, I agree with you insofar as the US Constitution is meant to apply to everyone, not just US citizens. However, killing the very people that you are supposed to represent is somehow viewed by most as worse. As if the fact that they are citizens makes them somehow more dead.
In general. I'd rather we did neither of those things. Want to know the real reason the terrorists hate us? Its probably the fact that we've been killing them and their families for decades now. If we really want to end terrorism, we need to stop participating in it.
But in short, someone doubted that the President had US citizens asassinated. I merely provided proof.
Yeah, Mittens has no chance. But thats what happens when you run against everything that people like about the current adminstration and promise to expand everything that people dont like about the current administration.
To me (and this is just my opinion), If Obama wins, the country might very well be screwed. If Mitt wins, it definitely is.
Edit- Also, Im wondering if the 47% that Romney doesnt worry about also includes all the corporations that suckle off the federal teat. *cough* Goldman-sachs *cough* Lockheed-Martin *cough*
Yeah, Mittens has no chance. But thats what happens when you run against everything that people like about the current adminstration and promise to expand everything that people dont like about the current administration.
To me (and this is just my opinion), If Obama wins, the country might very well be screwed. If Mitt wins, it definitely is.
Edit- Also, Im wondering if the 47% that Romney doesnt worry about also includes all the corporations that suckle off the federal teat. *cough* Goldman-sachs *cough* Lockheed-Martin *cough*
So, White, given the options, do you plan to vote in the election?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dick Morris has an important insight into this year's campaign.
Except he never tried to get that clause removed from the NDAA. And that fact comes from a highly regarded -left- wing magazineA left-wing magazine (Salon is highly regarded?) referring to the NDAA where that clause was introduced. The next year, Obama also pushed for it to be removed from the next NDAA (and, indeed, threatened to veto the bill before it was amended over this and over a same-sex marriage ceremony prohibition). The NDAA is the National Defense Appropriations Act, and it's constantly reupdated and passed, because it is an appropriations bill.
Obama fought against the Courts as soon as he realized that, instead of just using it as a platform to gather political support, he might actually see the repeal of DADT in his lifetime.So your argument is that, despite calling for a repeal of DADT in his State of the Union, despite calling for DADT repeal legislation, despite speaking about the injustice of DADT in the clearest terms, despite passing DADT repeal legislation over the threat of filibuster, the fact that Obama did not instruct the Department of Justice to stand down from their traditional duty of defending all legislation regardless of the president's personal opinion of that legislation means that Obama secretly loved DADT and didn't want to repeal it?
That's insane.
I wonder where you get your news sometimes. See, those funny little things called "facts" interfere with that "Obama as civil libertarian" fairy tale you are spinning. And, I hate to break it to you, the only "liberals" that don't regard the Salon highly are the ones in the DNC. Since, you know, Salon has this pesky habit of calling out EVERYBODY'S b%*@@~+$. No, the facts are a Federal judge in New York (Forrest) heard a suit brought by civil liberties groups, and Obama's Justice Department (and don't worry, the source is the Washington Post reporter writing the story for HuffPo. You can explain how those two sources prove I'm addicted to Fox News later, don't worry), and last week civil liberty groups asked Obama to back the f*~+ off and stop fighting someone actually making Progress against the man. So, you know, nice narrative, too bad it's as true as "Romney will fight for single payer and wash the feet of welfare recipients if elected!".
Seriously dude, not everyone on these boards that can't stand Obama listens to Rush and watches Beck. Some of us actually have non "secret Muslim, out of control Socialist (ha, now THAT'S hilarious, sure the Gobbo can weight on on the Socialist opinion of Obama), born in Kenya" reasons (sadly based on actual facts, and not the Repub/Dem lie fest mainstream party apologists/supporters keep on bleating about as if it meant a damned thing) to really, really despise the man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I heard HoustonDerek is totally addicted to Fox News.
Yeah, Mittens has no chance. But thats what happens when you run against everything that people like about the current adminstration and promise to expand everything that people dont like about the current administration.
To me (and this is just my opinion), If Obama wins, the country might very well be screwed. If Mitt wins, it definitely is.
Edit- Also, Im wondering if the 47% that Romney doesnt worry about also includes all the corporations that suckle off the federal teat. *cough* Goldman-sachs *cough* Lockheed-Martin *cough*
So, White, given the options, do you plan to vote in the election?
Yes. Not for either of those two, though.
|
|
Obama is a very, very intelligent man.
Citation needed. He isn't special ed like his predecessor, but the dude isn't rocking a Chomsky brain, not even close. He's ahead of the curve I guess, but the dude isn't a genius. Please.
Yeah, and I prefer some objective citations, not Biden condescendingly saying he found Obama more intelligent than he thought Obama would be, using patronizing language that's only offensive when coming out of a non-Dems' mouth.
You know, like his Harvard transcripts. (aMiB, stow it. I'm sure if I dig enough, I can find some corner of the universe where Bush's mediocre grades at Yale are cited by you. You can be precisely that kind of hypocrite).
Yeah, I'm gonna say graduating cum laude from one of the best universities in the world qualifies you to be described as smart.
Can we rest that point which is incredibly pedantic and, quite frankly, beneath the both of you?
|
|
Chomsky is as over-rated as Rand. Both are just ideologues of a different brand, with all of the problems inherent in any ideologue.
Give me a pragmatist any day. In fact, quoting one.
"We have ideals. We have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have."
Some of us actually have non "secret Muslim, out of control Socialist (ha, now THAT'S hilarious, sure the Gobbo can weight on on the Socialist opinion of Obama), born in Kenya" reasons
Thank you, HD, I would love to say something here...
Wait, where did everybody go?!? What? You've heard it all before?!? Come back!
Obama is a very, very intelligent man.Citation needed. He isn't special ed like his predecessor, but the dude isn't rocking a Chomsky brain, not even close. He's ahead of the curve I guess, but the dude isn't a genius. Please.
Yeah, and I prefer some objective citations, not Biden condescendingly saying he found Obama more intelligent than he thought Obama would be, using patronizing language that's only offensive when coming out of a non-Dems' mouth.
You know, like his Harvard transcripts. (aMiB, stow it. I'm sure if I dig enough, I can find some corner of the universe where Bush's mediocre grades at Yale are cited by you. You can be precisely that kind of hypocrite).
I find this amusing because college transcripts show surprisingly little about intelligence. There is only a very weak correlation between intelligence and success at college, and no correlation between GPA and success in the real world. I know multiple people with 1600 SAT scores (old system) who failed out of college. Most of the people I know whom I consider intelligent graduated with around a 3.0.
"Cs get degrees" was my unofficial college's motto. No one looks at college transcripts except maybe your first job out of college (and even then not in any of my friends experience), government employers, and graduate schools. Most employers don't even care about GPA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this amusing because college transcripts show surprisingly little about intelligence. There is only a very weak correlation between intelligence and success at college, and no correlation between GPA and success in the real world. I know multiple people with 1600 SAT scores (old system) who failed out of college. Most of the people I know whom I consider intelligent graduated with around a 3.0.
"Cs get degrees" was my unofficial college's motto. No one looks at college transcripts except maybe your first job out of college (and even then not in any of my friends experience), government employers, and graduate schools. Most employers don't even care about GPA.
Either way, we're talking about a guy who was a) admitted to Harvard in the first place, and b) graduated in the top of his class (oh, and was President of the Harvard Law Review at the time). By just about any objective measure you can come up with, the President easily qualifies as brilliant.
Chomsky is as over-rated as Rand. Both are just ideologues of a different brand, with all of the problems inherent in any ideologue.
Give me a pragmatist any day. In fact, quoting one.
"We have ideals. We have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have."
Chomsky has made actual contributions to science and society. Even if you disagree with his politics, that puts him way ahead of Rand, whose main contribution beyond politics seems to have been some terrible politically charge sci-fi.
Chomsky is as over-rated as Rand. Both are just ideologues of a different brand, with all of the problems inherent in any ideologue.
Give me a pragmatist any day. In fact, quoting one.
"We have ideals. We have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have."
It's probably worth citing that this was spoken by President Clinton, no? Who, by the way, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and is a graduate of Yale Law. It's almost as if Democrats have an abiding respect for intelligence and high levels of education.
By the way, if there is anyone reading this who is on the fence, or who doesn't think that they're familiar enough with the candidates or parties to make an informed choice, please give this page a read. It's a side-by-side comparison of the Republican and Democratic party platforms, in the parties' own words. It provides a very clear idea of what each party stands for, and is a wonderful rebuttal to those who believe the two parties are interchangeable.
It's probably worth citing that this was spoken by President Clinton, no? Who, by the way, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and is a graduate of Yale Law. It's almost as if Democrats have an abiding respect for intelligence and high levels of education.Chomsky is as over-rated as Rand. Both are just ideologues of a different brand, with all of the problems inherent in any ideologue.
Give me a pragmatist any day. In fact, quoting one.
"We have ideals. We have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have."
Noam Chomsky once told me to "shut up" because he can't deal with the truth that international proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer, but, still, I'd take him over Bill "I like to execute mentally retarded black people/I like to negotiate free trade agreements/I like to starve a million Iraqi babies to death" Clinton any day of the week.
but, still, I'd take him over Bill "I like to execute mentally retarded black people/I like to negotiate free trade agreements/I like to starve a million Iraqi babies to death" Clinton any day of the week.
Man those are my favorite hobbies as well!
I don't really like either candidate, but I know our only choices are Obama or Romney. After 4 years of wasted time, I'm definitely not voting for Mr Obama again.
Noam Chomsky once told me to "shut up" because he can't deal with the truth that international proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer, but, still, I'd take him over Bill "I like to execute mentally retarded black people/I like to negotiate free trade agreements/I like to starve a million Iraqi babies to death" Clinton any day of the week.
Anyone telling you that there's only one right answer is a fanatic or an ideologue. Neither is very helpful in coming up with a solution.
Your revolution is NEVER going to happen. The spread of european style socialism, and whatever is beyond that, might. If you can't hit the moon, be happy with climbing a mountain.
Anyone telling you that there's only one right answer is a fanatic or an ideologue. Neither is very helpful in coming up with a solution.
Your revolution is NEVER going to happen. The spread of european style socialism, and whatever is beyond that, might. If you can't hit the moon, be happy with climbing a mountain.
I have to agree, here. European socialism would be fine by me, but nothing changes overnight in politics, and the players can only do so much.
Henry Rollins explains why Obama was a disappointment to those who really thought he would change everything.
I don't really like either candidate, but I know our only choices are Obama or Romney. After 4 years of wasted time, I'm definitely not voting for Mr Obama again.
Care to outline the reasons you will vote against President Obama?
Noam Chomsky once told me to "shut up" because he can't deal with the truth that international proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer, but, still, I'd take him over Bill "I like to execute mentally retarded black people/I like to negotiate free trade agreements/I like to starve a million Iraqi babies to death" Clinton any day of the week.
Anyone telling you that there's only one right answer is a fanatic or an ideologue. Neither is very helpful in coming up with a solution.
Your revolution is NEVER going to happen. The spread of european style socialism, and whatever is beyond that, might. If you can't hit the moon, be happy with climbing a mountain.
The spread of European "socialism"?!? Have you seen what's been going on in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal? Someone told me that the Portuguese government recently announced that if young people there want a future they should...emigrate!
Anyway, Clinton might not have been a fanatical ideologue, but it didn't stop him from signing "Don't ask, don't tell!" or bombing that pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
Hazy memories from back in the mid-90s: more homosexuals got kicked out of the military under DADT than under Ask and kick out. Citation? My THC-addled memory.
If you got a scene from, Good Will Hunting, it's since been edited.
|
|
Chomsky has made actual contributions to science and society. Even if you disagree with his politics, that puts him way ahead of Rand, whose main contribution beyond politics seems to have been some terrible politically charge sci-fi.Chomsky is as over-rated as Rand. Both are just ideologues of a different brand, with all of the problems inherent in any ideologue.
Give me a pragmatist any day. In fact, quoting one.
"We have ideals. We have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have."
Rand has made generations of pretentious psuedo-college intellectuals unbearable.
So has Chomsky.
I agree that Chomsky has more value to society as a whole, but generally when either is cited, I am dealing with an ideologue not far removed from blind religious adherence.
What would Chomsky/Rand/Jesus do isn't a productive or useful discussion to me.
When Clinton signed it, it was not seen as an attempt to keep gays out of the military or too punish them, but as an attempt to let them serve. You can tell this by the anti-homosexual rhetoric thrown against it and against Clinton because of it.
Yes, I remember, I was there.
And yet, despite all of that, it led pretty quickly to homosexuals getting kicked out of the imperialist army at a faster rate than before.
(Gonna keep saying that until someone disproves it.)
What would Chomsky/Rand/Jesus do isn't a productive or useful discussion to me.
Then why did you bring it up?
|
|
You didn't bring up his name.
But when somebody brought up his criticisms of Obama as different from Fox News criticisms, you responded with the non sequitur that he was an ideologue as useless as Ayn Rand.
Then you say that asking what would Chomsky do isn't productive, which, of course, no one has done.
Then you say that Chomsky has made a generation of college students unbearable which is kind of funny coming from a guy whose tagline is "Facts have a well-known liberal bias."
Anyway, personally, I find this recent article much more useful than anything I've seen from the Democrats this year.
Go back and read the post three above. .
I accept your apology.