Previous 21 - 30 Next
I had the opportunity to go to grad school with many progressive to liberal Jews and this subject came up from time to time. The more observant seemed to favor Israel while the less observant tended to think that establishing an Jewish state was pointless, unnecessary, and racist. The most adamantly opposed took the view that a Jewish state was a kind of Jewish Liberia, a place where you put a problem race to forget about it. Further, they held the position that it oppressed the people already living there as intentionally created violent conflict. One told me: 'If we wanted to go back we would have on our own, we left for a reason."
I hate explosive rickets, that's why I make sure to drink a glass of fortified milk everyday. No offense intended just having some fun.
And? Every President has wished they could impose their will on Congress, why would Obama be any different? Hell, most of us wish we could impose our will on Congress.
I've never understood the "disproportionate response" argument in the Israel, Palestine discussion. One side is shooting rockets at the other, any response is valid in that situation up to and including invasion of the aggressors territory and salting all of its arable land. If Canada decided to shoot rockets into Detroit, you can be pretty sure that the US would respond brutally, decisively, and broadly.
I don't really mind misdirection, lies, and non-answers where appropriate. What really bothers me is that the Obama administration uses these tools so poorly and at the wrong times. The administration has struggled to generate competent and controlled narratives in all situations; which is remarkable considering how much the media is willing to cooperate with the administration and echo their message. For example, I would have preferred the Admin to lie or deny concerning the cyberattacks on Iran and provide an incomplete but believable narrative on Osama's death. I would preferred that they just came up with a competent, truthful narrative for the Churchhill bust fiasco and Fast and Furious, but they botched both of those.
Here's an example of the constructive style of logic train by Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/. I disagree with most of the logic and reasoning of the article as Conor takes a progressive view, but I like the article because of it gets to the thoughts animating the actions. It is something that can be discussed over the dinner table and allow the participants something to base their person convictions on. Merely, shouting "He's a liar" whether true or not, is discarded or ignored by most listeners. "He's a liar, because x, y, and z" can capture a mind and opinion.
The Evil Empire style provides reasoning and evident to the conclusion. e.g. the USSR denies it's citizens right x, y, and z. These rights are essential for the betterment of people because a, b, and c. Therefore because a, b, and c are not being met by the soviet model, and they continue to deny x, y, and z the USSR is evil. Scorched earth only say EVIL. No logic train, no discussion to be had at the dinner table. It's those discussions at the dinner table of the logic, reason, and values that builds conviction and righteous indignation in people. Scorched earth only builds a sense of being offended which can't be sustained long term. I wan't minds long term, not emotions right now.
Mickey, thank you for the reply and explanation. I think you and I are closer than you think on this. I'm more trying to get at the way we talk about what's going on. Demonization doesn't move the ball toward our side; rather, I believe that it only creates noise, it doesn't provide necessary ideological footing for peoples' opinions to stand-on long term. We should call evil, evil; but we shouldn't overreach and risk losing credibility or the chance to get others to ponder our base principles. I think taking a tone in our rhetoric that is overly inflammatory risks too much. I'm more for Reagan's "Evil Empire" style, than the scorched earth of our current political mudslinging
In response to:

A Losing Immigration Strategy

roosonhead Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 2:26 PM
It's an odd fact of American History that we focus so much on the South's ownership of slaves and so little on the North's supplying of those slaves. It's as if we want to limit the scope of the tragedy to just one region. Large portions of the North's colonial wealth came from the slave trade, yet they were the first to stand up and condemn slavery. Again though "liberal" is anachronistic and just as nonsensical in this discussion as the concept of "conservative."
Every single one? Ouch. At least I thank you for the respect. Maybe. What exactly do you respect about my comments or me if they are wrong on all accounts? Is being wrong worthy of respect? Or is it just that you respect my right to an opinion? I'm not being sarcastic or snotty, I've just always wondered what people mean when they say "with respect." If its just that you respect my right to opinion, then shouldn't we respect the right of the President to his and stop this demonization for having an opinion however wrong?
". . . have no standards whatsoever . . ." None you say. Not one. Not even a weak one? Maybe they do care about the debt and destruction of liberty, they just don't assign the same value to it that you are do. Kind of like the environment, we all care about the environment to some extent, but few of us care so much as to chain ourselves to bulldozers or to fight the draining of our local wetland. Does it mean we don't care about the environment at all, if we don't protest?
Previous 21 - 30 Next