Hey Obama Hyperpartisans! About that Iraq War position...
Hey Obama Partisans, remember all this fun http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/whos-on-first-forvm-obama-supporters-edition ?
Remember how I pointed out that Obama had shifted from a fairly clear commitment to withdrawing from Iraq beginning immediately upon taking office and proceeding roughly per his timetable, then shifted to a deliberately ambiguous stated position that people could interpret whichever way appealed to them, respectively -- that he was committed to withdrawing roughly per his timetable OR that he would not proceed with withdrawals if it would jeopardize Iraqi stability?
Remember how you guys insisted that Obama had a clearly-stated and consistent position on whether or not (or the extent to which) his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would be contingent upon security conditions or anticipated security impact of leaving, yet you couldn't tell me what it was without contradicting yourselves repeatedly in a simultaneously amusing and annoying circular fashion? And then one or two of you, after MUCH tooth-pulling by me, finally settled on Obama's supposedly clear, consistent position being that he would, at most, delay withdrawals very briefly (a few months or so) in the interest of maintaining stability, but not beyond that point, regardless of stability implications (perhaps short of some extreme event such as an Iranian invasion)?
Well, I just couldn't resist posting this quote below from The Economist's "wholehearted" endorsement of Obama:
Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&Story_ID=12511171
Very clever, deliberate ambiguity by Obama. He's gotten people to see whatever they want to see in his position, as I've said from the start.
Now back to your regularly scheduled hyperpartisan, everybody-talking-and-nobody-really-listening-and-thinking talking-point-hurlingfest.
--
- Brooks and B Rational's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Jeez!
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
)(NSFW language)
Great movie.
--~At times like these I am reminded of the immortal words of Socrates when he said...."I drank what?"
- Login or register to post comments
)Seriously, because I'm pretty sure it means "too stupid to appreciate my awesomeness" right now.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)here, excepting maybe those with a desire for debate. Most people agree that politicians (quite understandably) do not give hostages to fortune.
I see you make the point that US has been going down the route of fascism, for example, but its not making a hyperpartisan viewpoint (even though I think you are considerably mistaken).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No, the "too stupid to appreciate my awesomeness" is a separate matter, albeit one related to the cognitive limitations associated with the condition of hyperpartisanship.
In case that was a serious question, a hyperpartisan is someone who is so committed (on some level -- emotional, practical, etc.) to a party/candidate/ideology/issue position/etc. that he is incapable or unwilling to engage in any of the following, or some combination thereof:
- any reasonable degree of objectivity,
- exposure to and seriously consideration of conflicting information and arguments,
- good-faith, truly responsive discussion/debate,
- honesty and a reasonable degree of opennness (e.g., acknowledging/conceding some conflicting point; voluteering relevant information that works against one's position, etc.)
That's just off the top of my head, but I think it captures the essense of what characterizes a hyperpartisan.
And note that it is categorically different from a strong supporter and proponent of some party/candidate/ideology/issue position/etc. One can have very strong beliefs even at the extremes and be a fierce advocate and yet not be a hyperpartisan.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How does the phrase, "Obama has committed betrayals" fall into the definition of hyperpartisan, as you allege below?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )oh boy, I don't know how much time I'm going to devote to trying to help you through your confusion, particularly since I think your question is rhetorical. My best shot at deconstructing your point (or question, if it's a genuine question) is that you think that if you criticized Obama, you can't be a hyperpartisan. Wrong. If you criticize him from the left (or in any other way that implies that McCain is even less attractive on that issue, characteristic, etc.) then you can still be an ideological (or issue-level) hyperpartisan, and even arguably still an Obama hyperpartisan, although the latter is in question because, on the one hand, a criticism from the left is still an argument that he's better than McCain, but on the other hand it could hurt turnout or push would-be Obama voters to some other candidate further to the left (e.g., Nader).
There are plenty of conservative hyperpartisans (e.g., on RedState) who are supporting McCain but who criticize him for not being sufficiently pure as (what they consider) a conservative.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He isn't going to balance the budget any time soon, and we need to, as our obligations toward SS and Medicaid will be ballooning shortly. In addition, I believe that he needs to take a harder line against the House of Saud. Finally, the bailout bill which he voted for was an enormous expense which seemed to have little relationship to the problem at hand; one figures that the Law of Unintended Consequences is going to hit pretty hard.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And why is any of that "from the right"? And does any of that imply an advantage of a President McCain over a President Obama?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I had thought that fiscal conservatism was, um, conservative. I suppose that time really has passed.
Secondly, I don't understand the relevance. A fair criticism can apply to both candidates.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Fiscal responsibility used to be associated with conservatism and the Republican party, but no longer. I would say that there is no true fiscal conservatism without fiscal responsibility, but that does not mean that fiscal responsibility is itself conservative in the sense of being right-of-center (only in the broader sense of the word "conservative", as in prudent).
As for your second point, I've already explained the relevance to you. Did you somehow not get this explanation http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/hey-obama-hyperpartisans-about-iraq-war-position#comment-133417 , did you somehow already forget it, or are you just throwing out any old thing to create the pretense of a rebuttal?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I cannot disprove the hypothesis that, based on our conversation here, "hyperpartisan" is synonymous with "has an opinion."
I now graciously concede you the final word in this discussion, so that you may Win the Internet.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It is foolish to get worked up over this. You are hyper-parsing (see what I did there?) a position taken months ago on a subject that is moot at this point anyhow. Politicians try to have their cake and eat it too. Whoop-dee-doo. See McCain and abortion. As said elsewhere, a minority are voting for Obama strictly for his "16 months" position. Most, myself included, don't really know what will or can be done but there is trust in Obama's judgment. This goes for most policy statements, they rarely survive contact with Congress intact. You can skip the eye-rolling nonsense about not getting your point, ok?
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
)Since Nouri al-Maliki essentially came out and endorsed the Obama position and since Obama has at this point been basically acknowledging that he'll act in the interests of the U.S. (which will probably mean keeping a few thousand folks in Baquba and Mosul to keep an eye on things even after whatever time limit is up).
Given that the numbers at both Brookings and Icasualties indicate that we're at the lowest number of military and civilian deaths in Iraq pretty much since the unpleasantness began, we're kind of at the point where the only people who are going to be deciding the resolution of all of this are the Awakenings, Maliki, and the SIIC.
- Login or register to post comments
)Especially in light if this?
- Login or register to post comments
)- Login or register to post comments
)As usual, nothing worthwhile from you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I haven't seen that animated graphic before and I find it highly amusing.
--Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've seen it before, and it never gets old. I think what does it for me is the fact that he's wearing a tie.
-----
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeah, it does get old. And those who use it tend to overuse it (and vastly overestimate their wit in posting it), thus making it an ironic reflection on themselves.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )
--Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Good thing I'm working from home today, or my coworkers would think I'm insane.
He always reminds me of some angry middle manager.
-----
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He just found this dead horse and decided to start a-beatin' on it.
Which is sorta like the Hyperpartisan Business in the diary title. Which leads me to another of my fave linkie-winkies you're sure to enjoy:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think their writers are a little confused. Obama showed a little leg about being flexible on his 16-month withdrawal plan, then he put a burka over it a day or two later.
[EDIT] Perhaps they heard what they wanted to hear and disregarded the other 99.9% of his statements on withdrawals.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)One just can't get any more explicit on the whole peace = weakness = women thing, can one?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I know plenty of women would would nuke you in a heartbeat. :^)
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )not "feminine." Obama's playing coy on the exact details of his withdrawal plan (a smart move when you're not in position to set actual policy, BTW), and BD's figure of speech was quite effective.
Of course coyness is coded as feminine in our culture, but that's not BD's fault. No need to go all PC on him.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Again, my point isn't that Obama's position is what The Economist says it is, but rather that Obama's statements a few months ago were deliberately ambiguous, such that people could interpret them in opposite ways.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"I might be president a year from now. Why don't I lock myself into a course of action no matter what happens between now and then!"
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Aaaaannnnd another one misses the point.
One thing: A candidate saying he will be flexible.
A totally different thing: A candidate riding his way to a nomination by saying during the primaries that he will NOT be flexible, then making a deliberately ambiguous statement that some can interpret as meaning he WILL be flexible and others can interpret as meaning he will NOT be flexible, seeing in his statement a clear position that fits their preference.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh, it's clever of him (or of his campaign, whoever scripted those carefully worded, deliberately ambiguous statements). Reminds me of a cartoon I saw decades ago, which I'll adapt slightly: A house painter shows up to paint a couple's house. The wife greets him, and upon looking at the paint he has brought, she expresses concern, saying she thought the shade of paint would be lighter. Painter reassures her, "Paint dries lighter, ma'am." Reassured, she says, "OK, go ahead." She walks away and seconds later the husband comes over and expresses concern over the paint, saying he thought the shade would be darker. The painter reassures him, "Paint dries darker, sir." He replies "OK, go ahead."
Not very cool of the painter, although perhaps one could say all painters do it. Good chance either the wife or the husband -- or both -- are being misled.
Now, what if both husband and wife were with the painter at the same time and expressed their respective concerns (one wants it darker, one wants it lighter) and the painter replied "Don't worry. The paint will dry exactly in the shade you want" and both said "OK, great. Go ahead" ? And what if their neighbor pointed out to the wife that the painter just told them something that was obviously ambigous (at best) and she responded, "Don't be ridiculous. He was perfectly clear" ? Not the brightest, most objective consumers in the world, wouldn't ya' say?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's posit a hot third-world multi-way ethnic conflict with 150,000 of our troops in the middle.
Which way's that gonna dry again?
And, as far as your 'point', I mean, does the fact that about every primary-general electoral contest in American history has featured similar wiggling by both candidates mean anything?
Is your point that Obama is not in fact the messiah? Cause it's not his supporters using that term.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sorry, but I've made my point very, very clearly repeatedly on this thread already, and I'm not going to retype or copy and paste from elsewhere on this very thread for everybody here who somehow doesn't get it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What idiots!
--They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the painter says "Don't worry we can look at a sample before doing the whole room, and get the shade just right."
That you don't see Obama's *flexibility* on such issues is his fundamental advantage over Bush must be why you keep hammering the less interesting issue of just how flexible he is.
Being willing to adapt policy to reality is – in itself – a titanic improvement over the last 8 years.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )oh my frickin' god. I AM speaking English, right? Are you really somehow still missing my point or are you just pretending to?
The responses on this thread are such a clear reminder of why I don't come around here regularly anymore. Just an abundance of mindless, hyperpartisan, "ready,fire,aim!" responses based on obvious misunderstandings or the pretense thereof.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You realize that one of the people you are fighting with is one of the most partisan and passionate conservatives on this site?
--Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Only people who commit inflexibly to faith-based decisions made long before actual facts became available deserve to lead our country.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Predictable that an argument that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding and misses the point completely is quickly seconded here on Forvm.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They're looking at the wrong bit.
You say, "Obama was being artful in his statements, and that was fundamentally deceitful."
The response is, "Obama was being artful in his statements, because he is trying to be diplomatic in downplaying tensions between his supporters and build a coalition."
You say, "Yes, but that is deceitful."
The response is, "Deceit requires intent. Obama's statements are clearly understandable for what they are -- diplomacy."
You say, "Yes, but that is deceitful."
The response is, "There seems to be a preference for dogmatic adherence to previously articulated statement without accounting for changing circumstances."
You say, "No, the preference is for people to tell the truth, dammit."
And the response is, "The two are kind of the same thing, sadly."
That's the extra step in the chain of reasoning.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Missing the point. No, that's not what I'm saying, and the rest is off as well. I probably won't spend a ton of time continuing to deconstruct and correct all the errors that will probably continue to flow onto this thread. Maybe someone else will explain, but probably not.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )then he reversed himself and re-asserted his strait-jacketed timetable. The folks at The Economist heard what they wanted to hear.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Show me.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...here. Perhaps the confusing part is that he hinted that he would change the 16-month timetable on July 3rd with some malarkey about keeping troops safe and preventing genocide, etc., but then he almost immediately jumped back to his original 16-month position. Then he lied, saying that he said nothing different ("I've always said..."), which was flatly untrue. It was a one-day blip, but it was a blip that the folks at The Economist picked up on.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I see only WaPo's interpretation, not Obama's words indicating a firm commitment roughly to his timetable regardless of conditions or likely/potential consequences. And I saw that editorial at the time, and I think we were still debating (for lack of a better word) the matter here on Forvm, and I may have even cited it as one interpretation of Obama's words.
I'll check a bit for the full statements by Obama on which that editorial is based to see if there is clarity.
In any case, my recollection is that the debate here was based mainly/largely on his July 3 statement, which folks here were insisting was perfectly clear (then proceeding to try to have it both ways, repeatedly contradicting themselves).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )CNN confirmed the same thing:
I think your post showed something, just not the something you intended. Obama cracked open the door for a few days, then closed it. I don't consider that an "ambiguous" position. He floated something out there, got called on it, then he backtracked. To me, this says much more about Obama's supporters in the media. They're willing to take their views and project them onto the candidate, latching on to a view that had a shelf life of around 48 hours. Since "rational" is in your very name, I would've thought you would've remarked on the irrationality of The Economist.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're not really paying attention. Obama made that deliberately ambiguous statement on July 3, then proceeded to claim repeatedly that his position had not changed (and that anyone who saw any possible change in his position between his July 3 statement and prior statements must not have been paying attention -- ha! points for chutzpah) and to indicate that he still planned to withdraw per his timetable, but if you can show me some quote of Obama in which he says in some reasonably clear way that he would NOT substantially delay withdrawals (relative to his timetable) if he came to believe that beginning/proceeding with withdrawals per the timetable would jeopardize stability (or even more generally, his saying that he will proceed per the timetable no matter what, period), please provide a link to such a quote. Otherwise, all I'm seeing is conflicting interpretations by WaPo (and perhaps CNN) vs. The Economist.
So, to borrow the phrasing of that guy in the movie, "Show me the quote".
And for reference, on July 3 Obama said:
and
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As my CNN link showed, he backtracked. He threw some ambiguity out there for one day (as your link showed), and then The Flapjack Candidate faced some political heat for flip-flopping (this wasn't long after he broke his pledges on public financing and filibustering telecom immunity), he so flapjacked back to his original position.
The campaign website scrubbed anything to do with that sorry episode, but here's a direct quote two days after he opened that door: "I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that we would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months."
That's a direct reiteration of his stated policy of removing all combat brigades in 16 months. Any ambuigity from this lies in his lie that he hasn't said anything different. He did say something different on July 3rd, as you well noted, but then he backtracked, in the process trying to paper over his mistake with bullsh*t. Again, it's a little baffling to me that you're not taking The Economist to task for their pretty obvious error. They're good but they're not infallible, and I say this as a paying subscriber.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I do indeed take The Economist to task for their error. Obama has not by any means clearly stated the position they describe. Although until now I haven't criticized their error, nothing I've written on this thread has implied that I thought their statement was an accurate characterization of Obama's position. To the contrary, my point has been that Obama's statements have been ambiguous.
I also take to task all the people here on Forvm who persistently denied that Obama's July 3 statement was ambiguous and inconsistent with his statements and implications during the primary battle.
And I take to task the Obama supporters who are STILL trying to have it both ways -- that Obama's position on withdrawals is a wise one of flexibility and of responsible conditionality on anticipated impact on stability, yet also a guarantee that we'll withdraw at least roughly per his timetable.
And I also challenge those who claim that Obama has clearly gone back to his earlier, essentially inflexible position on withdrawals (allowing only for very brief delays) to show me (with quotes of him) his doing so with any degree of clarity. I'm still not seeing it. Do you have a quote in which he states that he would proceed with withdrawals at least roughly per his timetable even if it would jeopardize stability, or simply stating or even strongly implying that his plan is NOT contingent on conditions, or anything to that effect? Again, see those July 3 quotes stating such conditionality. Can you show me where he subsequently contradicts that conditionality? (Granted, in certain contexts and/or with a certain degree of repetition or tone, omission of such conditionality could be an implication of its absence, but that requires a more substantial case than just one or two quotes that don't mention it.)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He would get them out in 16 months, but he would do it as carefully and safely as could be done within that framework, without any of the conditionality that he hinted at two days earlier. Obama wasn't pressed to elaborate further because subsequent events worked in his favor (al Maliki's comments, SFA and SoFA negotiations, improving conditions, etc.). In any case, the argument is moot if the current edition of the SFA and SoFA are executed, which rejects both of the candidates' positions, but McCain's more.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Even if it were moot, which it isn't, that would be beside the point that I'm making.
And again, his simply omitting conditionality in a given quote or two is not necessarily anything approaching a clear retraction of the conditionality he implied in his earliest statements on July 3. As I said, the implication of absence via omission is a case that can be made, but it takes more than that.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We're trying really hard to discourage posts like that.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )sentence is a personal attack. You might want to watch that and I'm pretty sure BD WAS paying attention although probably not in a way that you like.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )lol, Give me a break. Telling someone he isn't paying attention is a "personal attack", and one that is worth pointing out and warning someone? Maybe this place should change it's name to The Wussvm.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the name of the Forvm™ is also a PR violation. That is all.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Because he's an im-pugilist?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've explained why I've stopped by. Try to keep up. Or you or one of the other mods can go all "Moe Lane" on me again if I'm making folks here look foolish (not a hard task, by the way, and it's really just a matter of revealing foolishness).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do us all a favor. Find somewhere on the net where smarter people dwell. Now myself, I've been online and on MILNET and ARPANET since before there ever was a goddamn Internet, back when email addresses didn't have @ in them, when they looked like user!server and people read their messages with tin.
I've written the whole time, in one form or another, and I prefer writing here, because this place has the highest signal to noise ratio, despite our few numbers. I contend with ferocious intellects who can smell a weak argument like a shark finds blood in the water.
If, in your journey, you find somewhere people will understand your sophistry and gasp in awe at your profundities and talmudic parsing of our feeble utterances, please stop back, if only in pity, that we might all make pilgrimage to this Compostela.
Until then, may I ask you, politely, to keep a civil tongue in your head, for you are on thin ice with pretty much everyone. If only you were half as smart as you think you are, and we twice as smart as you think we are.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I contend with ferocious intellects who can smell a weak argument like a shark finds blood in the water.
LOL
If, in your journey, you find somewhere people will understand your sophistry and gasp in awe at your profundities and talmudic parsing of our feeble utterances, please stop back, if only in pity, that we might all make pilgrimage to this Compostela.
The last injury I would inflict on a site in which reasonable, subtantive, genuine, intelligent discourse is taking place is the introduction of mindless, knee-jerk, hopelessly biased, unreasonable hyperpartisans to that site.
Until then, may I ask you, politely, to keep a civil tongue in your head, for you are on thin ice with pretty much everyone.
You seem to confuse me with someone who cares.
If only you were half as smart as you think you are, and we twice as smart as you think we are.
Then maybe we could have some worthwhile conversations (due to the latter), or at least a fair fight. But "smarts"/intellect is not the largest impediment. Immaturity is. The immaturity of hyperpartisans, who consistently opt for (and stubbornly stick to) beliefs that feel good rather than engaging in a genuine search for truth as best they can define it. But I'm most likely talking to the wall. Slight chance someone will read this and take something positive away from it. But probably all will react reflexively defensively and automatically reject the notion that he/she is a hyperpartisan and that being a hyperpartisan is really lame.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Rest assured, we are all awed in your august presence. If only you could impart some few scraps of wisdom to us. I am averting my eyes, O Lord.
Bless you, young man, for calling me immature. It's been several decades since that happened.
Again, may I caution you to avoid damaging your brachial plexus when you're patting yourself on the back, it's a very delicate muscle. As you get older, you will find it's far more rewarding to have others pat you on the back, and other places, too, where currently you might be patting yourself overmuch.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )[shark]smelling blood[/shark]. Seeing as you mentioned it, couldn't help it, sorry. Hope the favour is returned next time I spill some...
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and it was exactly zero fun.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As usual, you are obliviously confused. The kind of maturity to which I refer is not a function of age, probably not even strongly correlated, if at all. But you did demonstrate a different kind of maturity by pulling out (pardon the pun) what you apparently consider the ultimate argument: calling someone a j-rk off.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think I know. You remind me of someone I used to know. Myself, a long time ago.
G'wan 'long now, Brooks. I shouldn't be teasing you, it's mean of me. I'll be patiently waiting for you to return with the url of the site where your talents are properly appreciated. We poor schnooks of Forvm are far beneath your high standards.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I clearly am confused. Why am I having so much fun?
They do say that ignorance is bliss. Particularly oblivious ignorance. And even more so oblivious ignorance coupled with the delusion of insightfulness (e.g., yyyyyyyyou).
You remind me of someone I used to know. Myself, a long time ago.
If your conception of me bore any resemblance to reality, I'd offer my condolences for all the cognitive skills and maturity that you've lost. But it doesn't, so I won't, because you haven't (I have no reason to think you've lost such traits as opposed to never having them).
I'll be patiently waiting for you to return with the url of the site where your talents are properly appreciated.
Nice attention skills. I addressed that remark the previous time you made it (on this thread...in this exchange).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why must you rub it in? (rude snicker) These delusions of insight, my continued hilarity. I really do think it's time for you to stop tormenting us poor cockroaches with the flashlight of your brilliance.
(jeez, I'm killin' myself over here, I just gotta stop!)
I've seen mere arrogance, plenty of it. But seldom has it been coupled with such wisdom (ROFL) and a willingness to teach (oh make me stop someone! roflmao!). Such truth-telling, such ruthless cutting down of foolishness, oh it really is something to behold. How do you manage to stagger around carrying that enormous brain on your shoulders? I guess you have your ego (awkawk!) to help you bear up under the strain of such greatness.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Is there anything you're capable of getting? I just said that I have no reason to think that you've gotten dumber (or less mature), as opposed to always being the way you are. But somehow you read my comment and interpreted it as meaning the opposite of what I clearly said. Maybe you should quit while you're way behind rather than continuing this pathetic display in which you provide yet more evidence of deficiencies you claim don't apply to you, and do so with ironic snark.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Both because it's now beyond silly, and because you're both violating the Posting Rules in various and sundry ways. Don't make us suspend you with hours to go in the election.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )lol, I rest my case. Thank you. That is all.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...if your post is the last one on a thread, you Win the Internet.
FYI.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Keep your powder dry, B&BR. You'll get a better shot.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)"Premature ejaculation"? Oh come on.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, premature. We can argue about this when and if it actually happens. Some dope on the opinion page of the Economist does not constitute proof of perfidy. If the entirety of your argument is that Obama is being somewhat glib about his actual positions, then you need to make better arguments. Obama is a politician, QED....
-----
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, one of my main points is that hyperpartisans are far too gullible, biased and/or insincere -- a comment on a politician's ability to get away with deliberate ambiguity because people like the Obama supporters here on Forvm see (or at least claim to see) a clear statement of a position where there is none. In other words, my point pertains to hyperpartisans like the Obama supporters here as much as (or more than) it does to Obama.
And as for the "com...", that was MY intended pun.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )doesn't make it any more interesting. Hyperpartisans by definition believe only the best things about their candidates and party. This is tautological. This is equally true for both right and left. If you want to claim that there are an excess of hyperpartisans at The Forvm, that is a different if equally useless argument.
-----
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, I have not only obviously claimed that there is an excess of hyperpartisans (on both sides) here at Forvm -- to say the least (to say the most is that ALL the regulars here are hyperpartisans, maybe, maybe with one or two exceptions) -- and I've provided plenty of examples and explanations in the past (and one more here). It may indeed be useless in the sense that hyperpartisans may be incapable of seeing their hyperpartisanship even when it's made clear to them (almost by definition) and thus it may not be possible to change them and, in turn, to improve political discourse here on Forvm. Then again, there may be some who are reformable and other non-regulars/non-commenters who are not hyperpartisans and who can learn enough to stay away from that mindset. In any case, I've given up trying to move folks away from this mindless, knee-jerk, stubborn hyperpartisanship here on Forvm, and there's little of interest to me from such people, so I don't plan to be around much. I just stopped by for the aforementioned reason.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I disagree with your assertion that this site is full of hyperpartisans and also disagree that you've made a decent case and provided much support for it.
In any case, it is a mind bogglingly arrogant position for you to take to try to "improve the discourse" here, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. We are well aware of who posts what. You are not the one eyed man in the land of the blind. The fact that you manage to irritate members of The Forvm from all across the political spectrum should indicate that you are doing something wrong.
My own support of Obama has little to do with his stated positions on any subject. Though I broadly agree with what I know of them, I disagree on some points. My support stems from my opinion on his temperament and judgment. I anticipate that he will try to find the best solution for any problem set in from of him, and will not hew to any ideological position out of some misguided sense of principle if it isn't working. If he does something I disagree with, I expect he will attempt to justify his decisions on a rational basis. This is enough of a novelty to justify voting for him all by itself.
-----
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Before you really ever made much of an effort? Parting advice: next time you try to persuade people, you might consider dropping the hyperbolic name-calling. Regurgitating "hyperpartisans" incessantly (you average 3 "hyperpartisans" per sentence in just your first two lines of this post) tends to inhibit any serious reflection and dialogue.
--Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Maybe that's our new meme. Beating a dead hyperpartisan.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Goodbye.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the trick with having an open mind is not letting your brain fall out.
Obama's committed a few important betrayals of his Progressive supporters. It's possible, even likely, he'll commit more. McCain is seeking the nomination of a theocratic pseudofascist Party, and he has eagerly embraced that Party's worst elements to do it.
For anyone to the left of Joe (the Plumber?) McCarthy, this shouldn't be a particularly difficult decision.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What will Obama do if there is a widespread goat kill in Iraq? Huh? How can you have a plan for Iraq if you don't answer that?
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yet another one misses the point. See my earlier reply to a similar manifestation of confusion by dionysus
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thanks for the irrelevant hyperpartisan rant.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This diary is troll chow. It's nothing you haven't regurgitated a dozen times before.
Now here's the way it's going down in Iraq. Three main dials we can turn, and only three.
Dial 1: Reduce troop numbers overall.
Dial 2: Do deals with Iran and Maliki.
Dial 3: Do deals with the Sunni.
All three dials will be turned eventually, how much and when each dial will be turned is anyone's guess. The Kurds are already in our camp, the Sunnis very largely in our pocket. Maliki is not in our pocket.
This whole idea of Victory or Defeat is crazy talk and you goddamn well know it. There's only one good outcome here: we extricate ourselves from Iraq without the recommencement of a civil war. That's it. There is no other good outcome.
The Sunnis and Shiite warlords all hate Al Qaeda after the Samarra Mosque bombing. Foreign insurgents are unwelcome. Iran blundered horribly in Iraq: there's no way Iran's hegemony will be welcomed.
Iran is about to blow up. Want to know why? Oil prices are falling: they can't afford all those subsidized goodies anymore. Iraq will soon catch up to Iran: currently Iran sells everything it can to Iraq for hard currency. If it weren't for Iraq coming back online, Iran's economy would be far worse than it already is.
So here's how it will go. We'll tell Iran to play ball and get right with the IAEA and quit interfering in Iraq. In exchange, we'll start lifting sanctions and withdrawing troops. Iran is far more afraid of us than we are of them.
Doing deals with the Sunnis will keep the Maliki / DAWA /SCIRI factions in line. Maliki now faces a credible deterrent force in the new Sunni warlords. The Kurds trust neither side, though they are lately coming to terms with Turkey, very oddly. It's not just Iran which has made out well, Turkey is turning into quite an engine of statecraft and wheeler-dealer in the Middle East, brokering deals with Israel and Syria too.
Maliki is a horrible politician, he's beholden to all sorts of religious interests when he ought to be thinking through all sorts of infrastructure improvements. Obama will stop dealing with him soon enough. Obama will start dealing directly with Iran, because if Iran implodes, Iraq will catch fire, too, and everyone with a clue knows it.
Tell you who Obama will set to this problem: Chuck Hagel. A Republican. I am telling you right here and now, anyone who studies Obama seriously cannot be a hyperpartisan. To be an Obama Fan, and I am, with certain caveats, is to understand the nature of statecraft, of hard and soft power, and the ruthless lack of ideology which will guide Obama on the road out of Iraq.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Amazing. I made my point clearly, it's not rocket science, and I assume everyone here is fluent in English, yet just about everybody is missing the point.
I'm not telling people they shouldn't vote for Obama.
I'm not making any comment on what is wise Iraq policy, nor on what Obama will actually do, nor on what else will happen in Iraq, nor on whether it is wise for a candidate to present a flexible position.
Oh, and I'm not "re-starting" here on Forvm. I just stopped by because I couldn't resist pointing out that line from The Economist and watching the reactions here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now, did I miss the point here, or not? What's it with you, do you have "hyperpartisan" on a keyboard macro? Of course you're not making any comment on wise Iraq policy. I'm making the statements about the art of the possible, whether they are wise or not I leave to the judgment of others.
Obama and his Timeline is So Last Week. Give it a rest, please. Your Symphony for Single Cymbal is beyond repetitive, it's now reached the level of an O/C disorder. I mean it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you were a mod, this site would be the equivalent of you sitting alone in a room with an echo, saying stuff and then, upon hearing the echo, not understanding what was said, but agreeing with it because you recognize the voice.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )personal attacks. Pretty please. With candy corn and bite-size Reeses Peanut-Butter Cups.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seriously. But I'd throw in a candy apple. Everybody loves candy apples. :)
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This is a small and tightly knit group of people, all of whom I have come to like over time, each in his own way, especially those I don't agree with politically.
They know more than me on many subjects. They're not as predictable as on other fora. It's hard going, trying to convince people over here, but I've made my place here and here I'll stay.
Now if you're just dropping in to tell us once again that Obama is lying about getting us out of Iraq in 16 months, let me tell you how it goes with me as a consultant. Often, I'm given a fixed period of time to solve a problem. There are three legs to a project: timeline, deliverables and resources. If I want things done in less time, I have choices: less deliverable or more resources or both. I don't play around with my clients. I know what can and can't be done in a given period of time: I've been at this far too long.
So Obama wants out in 16 months? So does Iraq's government. How do we get out safely? By doing exactly what Obama said and according to his principles. WaPo says Obama was wrong to say we couldn't stop a sectarian war. I disagree: we can't stop a civil war if it began, as we couldn't stop it when it arose the first time after the Samarra Mosque bombing. That war ground to a halt, not because we did anything with that ridiculous Surge, but because we gave a little to the Sunni Awakening and paid both sides not to fight, especially the Sunnis.
Now the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it will get for us. We're a major irritant, just another militia in the landscape. The longer we stay, the less impetus Maliki and his worthless cronies have to come to any resolution of the larger issues facing Iraq. I would argue Obama has always been right, for reasons you cannot see and refuse to acknowledge, though they've been put before you a hundred times.
We will be out in 16 months, on the dot, perhaps even sooner. On that you can bet the farm, Brooks.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How is it humanly possible to persistently, consistently miss the point despite it being made clearly in the first place, then explained very clearly repeatedly in conjunction with clear distinctions from the misinterpretation? How?
Is there some other language in which I can say that I'm not commenting on what Obama will actually do, nor even what he is actually privately committed to doing, nor what else may/will happen, nor what what would be good policy, nor whether or not a candidate being flexible is smart politics or responsible statesmanship, etc., etc.?
Is there some "missing the point" epidemic throughout Forvm? Or are you guys just pretending to misunderstand so you can make points you want to make under the guise of addressing (and criticizing/refuting) my actual point? Just curious.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )--
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dumbed-down, 20-word version, per your request:
You guys are letting hyperpartisanship blind you. Try to overcome it and apply a reasonable degree of objectivity. Duh.
Extended version for those not afflicted by A.D.D. or very limited reading comprehension skills:
I'm simply saying that, on a very important issue, Obama rode to the nomination largely via a clear position, then shifted to a deliberately ambiguous position, and his hyperpartisans (e.g., his supporters here on Forvm) either persistently try to have it both ways on what his position is, while stating that it's quite clear (lol), or absurdly claim that his public position is and has always been very clearly still the same as it was during the primaries. And I've tried to get you guys to apply some degree of objectivity, reason and sincerity to this matter, not that it should change your vote or level of support for Obama, but just to take off the hyperpartisan glasses and put down the hyperpartisan megaphone for at least moment and apply some reasonable degree of objectivity and opennness/sincerity. Who knows -- it could become a habit.
A few months back (early July, if my recollection is correct, but see the links to the other threads if interested), Obama shifted from his previous, clear, inflexible position to an ambiguous position – NOT to be confused with a flexible position – designed to lead those who wanted to see a continuation of his inflexible position see just that, whi