Originally Posted By Dabob2 Obama didn't do a 180 on Afghanistan, which is not Iraq. The fact that pop in with the response you did, showing that you don't get that is, ironically, proving our point.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>There is something to be said for keeping the level of discourse higher, while still insisting on facts rather than fantasy. << Yes. It legitimizes idiocy. >>I love how you want discuss Obama doing a 180 on Afganistan.Instaed you turn to the Tea Party or me.<< SHUT UP, Donny. See? Now was that any less effective than your post 20?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes. It legitimizes idiocy.<< The problem is, idiots don't realize they're idiots. Movies have trained us to think that a great speech or a well-timed zinger will get the 80s bully or the horrible mother-in-law to realize how awful they've been. Or at least everyone else will realize how awful they've been and everyone moves forward, happily ever after. But in real life, zingers and brilliant statements galvanize your side, but they don't penetrate the other side. There's a whole psychology to this (see Shermer, "The Believing Brain"). Now, I'm all for getting idiots out of the debate entirely. But there's just no way to do that. At least not in Congress. They'll always be there, and if Obama responds the way I want him to respond when I'm at my most outraged, it'll just make things worse and then he'll be the "angry black man." He has to indulge them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>There is something to be said for keeping the level of discourse higher, while still insisting on facts rather than fantasy. << <Yes. It legitimizes idiocy.> It can also calcify positions and cause people to stop listening. >>I love how you want discuss Obama doing a 180 on Afganistan.Instaed you turn to the Tea Party or me.<< <SHUT UP, Donny. See? Now was that any less effective than your post 20?> Because post 20 MIGHT, just might, get Donny to look back at his original link and see that the author of that piece was disingenuously trying to compare Obama's position on Iraq with that of Afghanistan. And maybe, just maybe, Donny will say "hey... that was dishonest of him." Is it likely to? Probably not. And it can be exhausting trying to make that happen. And - call me crazy - but I'm old enough to remember the Civil Rights Movement (I was a kid, but a pretty observant one), which arguably caused the greatest sea change in our culture in the 20th century. You had Malcolm X calling white people idiots (and, earlier than that, "devils," before coming to a different philosophy later in his life) and MLK saying that white people were win-over-able and potential allies. Even those who seemed like lost causes and totally recalcitrant. He spoke very strongly against racISM, of course, but remained convinced that moral persuasion could eventually work with just about anyone. Both approaches were arguably necessary, but ultimately which was the more successful? And in my adult life I've seen any number of people I know personally go from very bigoted attitude towards gay people to "well, I guess you shouldn't beat them up," to "well, I guess you shouldn't discriminate against them in hiring," to "hey, I know a couple of gay people and they're all right, though of course marriage is just for straight people" to "you know, there's really no good reason why gay people shouldn't marry each other legally." And that didn't come about from people standing up in church ceremonies and telling the priests to shut up. It came from slow, steady, moral persuasion. And I'm talking about at least a couple of (once) seemingly hopeless cases I know personally. It doesn't work with everybody. Maybe it won't work with Donny. It can be frustrating for sure and sometimes I admit I wish I could just (metaphorically) shake him by the neck and say "Get a clue!!!" But it's what I'm more temperamentally suited for, and also - call me crazy - I believe in it. OTOH, as I've already said, in a forum like this, something pithier and harsher is okay too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <They'll always be there, and if Obama responds the way I want him to respond when I'm at my most outraged, it'll just make things worse and then he'll be the "angry black man." He has to indulge them. > You and I obviously agree on the basics here, but even I think Obama has erred too much on the side of caution. He needs to lay out and insist on the basic facts (and basic math) to a greater degree, and with at least a LITTLE fire. Perhaps as he gets into campaign mode he will - I hope so.
Originally Posted By ecdc And don't get me wrong. I really like Obama - I think he's sincere and really means well, but I'm not afraid of criticism of him. But I feel like all I hear are generalities. I'm not sure I've ever heard a criticism or idea for Obama that involves a specific action that would lead to a specific result or change. I hear: He needs to "get tough." He needs to be a "stronger leader." He needs to "demand more." He needs to "quit negotiating with Republicans." He needs to "quit giving in." He needs to "stick up for liberals." He needs to "be more like Bush." And somehow this is supposed to achieve: Expiration of Bush tax cuts Single-payer or public option Defense cuts but hands off entitlements Higher taxes for wealthy Higher taxes for corporations Prosecution of Wall Street Closing of Gitmo So even in my own frustration, I always fall back to "What do people want him to do?" given the makeup of the Congress. So (and I ask this sincerely and not rhetorically) what could Obama do specifically that would lead to these specific things liberals like me want?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm all for getting idiots out of the debate entirely. But there's just no way to do that. At least not in Congress.<< Nope, a concentrated effort will do it. But we have to choose to get ruthless. To totally destroy reputations and deliberately foster cultural prejudice against the ignorant. You don't have any other options left. >>It can also calcify positions and cause people to stop listening. << Already happened. Which is my point. You're all closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. >>Because post 20 MIGHT, just might, get Donny to look back at his original link<< Horse pucky. >>I'm old enough to remember the Civil Rights Movement ... and MLK saying that white people were win-over-able and potential allies.<< civil rights =/= economic policy the white south =/= corporate America the WCC =/= the right-wing noise machine >>And somehow this is supposed to achieve:<< Not necessarily. The thing the extreme right understands, and the Dems still don't get, is that sometimes a defeat is better than a compromise. It paints a clear line as to what the two positions are, and presents an object lesson as to the results of taking the wrong path. Besides that, I guess I see the current situation as more dire than the rest of the panel here. The house of cards is in a category 5 hurricane and starting to flap a bit. We don't have any more time to change stubborn minds or reach compromises with the intransigent. A compromise at this point IS a defeat. The correct decisions need to be made NOW. The margin for error is gone. They get it exactly right, or the country blows up. So what do I want Obama to do? Raise taxes on the wealthy, regulate the snot out of 'em, let the TBTF banks fail with all "bailouts" going directly to citizens, enforce the American minimum wage on the manufacture of all products that come from overseas or you don't get to sell them here, broadcasters not operating in the public interest lose their license ... ... and if Congress won't cooperate, declare a national emergency and do it all anyway. And be prepared to take down any armed insurrections that result. "But mawnck! That will mean that all that stuff about Obama being a Socialist bent on taking over the country will be true!" Shut up, Donny. It's miles better than what you're offering.
Originally Posted By mawnck There, see, you got me so worked up that I forgot the most important thing ... SINGLE PAYER. SINGLE PAYER. SINGLE PAYER. Until that happens, it ain't fixed. Period. No room for even teeny weeny compromises. BTW, the REAL cause of the impending economic disaster is ... <a href="http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cartoon-culture/the-smurfs-bad-for-animation-bad-for-america.html" target="_blank">http://www.cartoonbrew.com/car...ica.html</a>
Originally Posted By Donny "Raise taxes on the wealthy" the top 20% of all earners in the US pay about 80% of all taxes. While the bottom 50% pay less than 10%. "let the TBTF banks fail with all "bailouts" going directly to citizens" How about use it to upgrade our country "enforce the American minimum wage on the manufacture of all products that come from overseas" "broadcasters not operating in the public interest lose their license" By you really hate free speech Cesar Chavez
Originally Posted By dshyates ""Raise taxes on the wealthy" the top 20% of all earners in the US pay about 80% of all taxes. While the bottom 50% pay less than 10%." Well, the top 2%, make 60% of the income earn in America. Thus the percentage of taxes follow suit.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o <<Nope, a concentrated effort will do it. But we have to choose to get ruthless. To totally destroy reputations and deliberately foster cultural prejudice against the ignorant. You don't have any other options left.>> And how does that not devolve into something just as bad? Is it just a slew of broad personal attacks? Is it okay to stretch the truth a little? <<... and if Congress won't cooperate, declare a national emergency and do it all anyway. And be prepared to take down any armed insurrections that result.>> Forcibly doing what you want is not selfish how? Why should anybody believe that you have the interests of others at heart when you are willing to push down any persons who dare to oppose you?
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o <<save the country from the idiots. By any means necessary. End of story.>> Who gets to decide who are the idiots? Is there a test? What of those who propose a different means? What protects you from being labeled an idiot?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Why should anybody believe that you have the interests of others at heart when you are willing to push down any persons who dare to oppose you?" Because your way is the idiot's way. Your way hasn't worked. It's time for the tea partiers to go away, to quit terrorizing our government and now, if you've read about Asia's Monday market opening, bringing down their economies as well. I loathe your point of view.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o <<Because your way is the idiot's way. Your way hasn't worked. It's time for the tea partiers to go away, to quit terrorizing our government and now, if you've read about Asia's Monday market opening, bringing down their economies as well. I loathe your point of view.>> And you have divined my way how? I cannot recall myself making any mention to the Tea Party, much less making any statements of allegiance. And for your way to be the "non-idiot" way, why can it only be achieved through force? Is the notion of elected government fundamentally flawed? Can the people not govern themselves?
Originally Posted By Donny It seems stupid to blame the people who warned you that the U.S. was headed for trouble waters a few years ago.I guess you would rather call us racists and traitors but really as a Tea Party person myself I find it sad that you all would rather just keep spending our way out of this problem or even worse you think that taxpayers should be burdened with more taxes.The way I see this is the housing bubble with the sub prime loans was a big contributer that tipped this house of cards and who fueled the sub prime loans people who in my estimation should not have been getting homes they 1. didn't understand the loan they were getting and 2.couldn't afford the loan they took on.There is plenty of blame to go around for who caused this problem but few good solutions.The Tea Party is unhappy with the size and role of government and feel like it's time to reduce it's role and size.Some of you act as if we want no regulations and no taxes.I would not be part of the Tea Party if this was the case.Smart government that allows for more freedom to succeed as well as fail.We don't want to see corporations get away with jumping through cooperate loop holes,we want to see everyone play fare but this includes people who illegally hire non full tax paying employees that the employer does not pay a livable wage in the first place.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The way I see this<< Too irrelevant. Did not read. >>Can the people not govern themselves?<< Currently, no.
