Notice how leftwing Jon mocks conservatives while Obama and his gang of morons are in charge.
Jon has to go back in time to make a point about circa now. The clips he shows are old and out of context - but the clips bring the hate and create the necessary party functionary distraction.
Jon Stewart is a full blown party hack. He's funny - but he's a hack.
In 2008, a law professor told me that the Democrats would be forced to take responsibility for foreign policy if we elected Obama. Back then I didn't know how dumb law professors can be. I learned a lot at TOP.
Is Lurch even human? If he is, he has to be the last of the lost race from Easter Island, or he's a member of the undocumented cooks known as the Kanamits.
More on jobs in the Democratic economic wonderland:
The recession, for all its brutality, was comparatively egalitarian, said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist. It struck the young and old, educated and uneducated, white collar and blue collar. The recovery, by contrast, has been asymmetric: Those who held on to their jobs or quickly found new ones have made up much of the ground they lost, while the jobless continue to suffer.
"If you've made it through and you're still employed, your stock portfolio has recovered, your house price is recovering, too," Mr. Burtless said. "For the unemployed, this has been a miserable recovery compared to pretty much any of the postwar recoveries."
Recent studies in both the U.S. and overseas found employers often won't even consider the long-term jobless for openings.
Many have given up applying. Nearly seven million people say they want a job but aren't actively looking for work.
Although I would dispute the bit about those that kept jobs are doing better. The median wage keeps falling whole the cost of pretty much everything keeps rising.
What bullshit, ARM. We're five million full-time jobs short of where we were six years ago. That's after four+ years of 'recovery'. At least seven million people have dropped out of the workforce even though they want jobs: There are none to be had, and once one becomes long-term unemployed, businesses won't even look at resumes or applications anymore. Why? Too many people are looking for jobs, and it is the easiest and first filter the HR people have.
This is YOUR economic wonderland, bitch. Own it, and own the destruction of people's lives that you've caused. Worst of all, evil little shits like you think this is a wonderful thing, because you love nothing better than seeing people destroyed so that your party can thereby profit.
Note too the usual MO. Obama and the Democrats can't POSSIBLY be responsible for the worst recovery since they started keeping records. No way! The reason all those unemployed people are unemployed is because they're bad people and deserve it.
There's your compassion for the poor, right there, Leftist-style.
Also note that since blacks are getting hit disproportionately, ARM is stating that black people are disproportionately nasty people that deserve to be unemployed.
Racist and classist, but no one is really surprised by such behavior form a leftist these days, are they?
Icepick said... Note too the usual MO. Obama and the Democrats can't POSSIBLY be responsible for the worst recovery since they started keeping records. No way! The reason all those unemployed people are unemployed is because they're bad people and deserve it.
There's your compassion for the poor, right there, Leftist-style.
Also note that since blacks are getting hit disproportionately, ARM is stating that black people are disproportionately nasty people that deserve to be unemployed.
Racist and classist, but no one is really surprised by such behavior form a leftist these days, are they?
Oh bullshit. I am talking specifically about special ed, ostensibly a well educated white guy.
ARM wrote: Oh bullshit. I am talking specifically about special ed, ostensibly a well educated white guy.
ARM also wrote: There are jobs for people with marketable skills who don't go out of their way to poison their environment.
So, what about the seven million who have dropped out? What about the younger people that can't even get IN? What about the millions still looking (unsuccessfully) for work and failing to find anything good? And why did they suddenly become unskilled and toxic five years ago?
No, you don't get off that easy, ARM, because of what you wrote, and what you support. This is your economy, bitch, own it, and own the destruction. For once in your miserable cretinous life, take responsibility for what you say and do, asshole.
I am perfectly happy to take responsibility for what I say. My topic for today has been edutcher and what a poison he is. No doubt he is also workplace poison. Inflexible, fixated and obsessive.
The employment situation is difficult but not that bad for the groups whom ed claims to belong to, upper class, well educated and, by his own self referential standards, a classy intellectual kind of guy.
edutcher said... Never had any trouble with Titus.
You have never had any trouble with me either you moron. I normally ignore your tedious posts.
Althouse couldn't stand you, no left leaning poster on Althouse could stand you. You have achieved your goal. Ideological purity is within your grasp. Nasty little facist.
ARM, interesting that your taking on Edutcher now. Why now? He cant help himself, he called me "She Wolf of the SS" again a few times here, only one person spoke up and said it was uncalled for. Ah well.
I am perfectly happy to take responsibility for what I say.
Bullshit, ARM, you're already trying to back out of what you wrote above, claiming that it only applies to one person. That would be true if there wasn't an employment crisis in this country. But there is, so you're attempt to say that everyone with skills and a good attitude is impossible to believe.
I know lots of professionals who are not only unemployed, they're LTUE. It's a cancer eating away at the economy. Hell, I have even known a couple of rocket scientist types who can't get work at WalMart now. No one wants the LTUEs, and they're legion now.
Hell, a legion was only 6000 men or so. We've got thousands and thousands of legions of LTUE. The federal government helpfully only classifies about two million as such, but they ignore the seven million or more who have dropped out.
I like to see lefties here; the argumentative friction is productive. You in particular are often a good interlocutor/ adversary. But (IMO, didn't see what see you off today) you're being totally unreasonable right now.
If ed gets your goat, there are plenty of other righties to converse & argue with. Why let one commenter affect you so?
Seems to me by personalizing things to this extent-- singling ed out for a torrent of insults-- you're the one importing some of the toxic stuff from TOP that was.
AA did pick on ed, personally, at the end there, unfairly IMO. And all the lefties jumped on the AA bandwagon, to gleefully insult him. That wasn't to your (the lefties') credit.
AReasonableMan said... My topic for today has been edutcher and what a poison he is. No doubt he is also workplace poison. Inflexible, fixated and obsessive.
From someone who considers it acceptable to call those with different priorities traitors.
Inga said... ARM, interesting that your taking on Edutcher now. Why now?
Yesterday I sat down at the computer and wanted to argue some shit re Syria. I went to Althouse and she has her fucking moderated comments and a bunch of yes men and then I came here and I thought, 'now I have to deal with this asshole'. So I closed the computer.
We had quite a good discussion group at Althouse, except for a few sociopaths, who were well diluted by a large number of reasonable people and then this site started out quite optimistically, but it just takes one asshole to wreck a party.
I am just frustrated with how things have played out. I don't anticipate any useful resolution, which is why I have never bothered saying anything until now. I even encouraged people to let the asshat do some posts of his own thinking that some acknowledgement and responsibility would settle him down. Some people are just never gonna get it.
Yashu, One gets called names by Ed, even if they are not directly conversing with him. He quotes a commenter and then adds his insults, despite the fact that the comment was not directed at him. One cannot make a general comment without Edutcher grabbing it and responding in a nasty manner.
I don't understand why you folks tolerate this from him. Is it because he directs type of thing only at liberals? I understand that respect ARM and want to keep liberals like him here, but really with types like Edutcher, why would/should they? I am fairly immune to attacks from some here and don't really give a damn.
yashu said... AA did pick on ed, personally, at the end there, unfairly IMO. And all the lefties jumped on the AA bandwagon, to gleefully insult him.
I didn't, so either I am not a lefty or you are over generalizing. I now understand Althouse's thinking, which I didn't at the time. Her solution has been a failure but I can see why she thought she couldn't get to where she wanted from where she was.
Inga writes: I don't understand why you folks tolerate this from him. Is it because he directs type of thing only at liberals? I understand that respect ARM and want to keep liberals like him here, but really with types like Edutcher, why would/should they? I am fairly immune to attacks from some here and don't really give a damn.
Last week or so I started to put up some Robert Frost poetry posts but stopped because Titus insisted on defacing each and every one of them in the comments. Then he followed me to my own blog to continue. I never saw you even raise an eyebrow.
That is a lie Edutcher. I never try to engage you. I did speak to you about your wife's nursing blog and that conversation went well, you didn't resort to name calling there. I posted a political comment a few days ago and IMMEDIATLY you lapsed into your old behavior and used that She Wolf of the SS thing again. I was not addressing you there, why did you address me in the manner that you did?
I don't understand why you folks tolerate this from him
I am not part of the cool crowd here so I don't think this is directed at me but answering for myself, I would sat I would never think to call someone out on stuff like that because it is so silly, and so obviously better ignored IMO.
If it makes you guys feel better: @edutcher- the nicknames are rather annoying, and weaken your posts and the position you argue from, in my opinion.
I agree that ed sometimes (unfortunately) is too quick to treat all left-of-center commenters like trolls, lumping them all together.
And unfortunately, when one is (unfairly) treated like a troll, that tends to provoke trollish behavior. So I get where ARM's annoyance and outburst is coming from.
But ed's been a target of abuse too, so I get where some of his contempt for TOP lefties is coming from, as well.
Hate to be the annoying one to sing kumbaya here (heh, shoot me now). But here's what I'd say to everyone: try to leave shit from the past, old grievances and resentments from TOP, behind. A provisional blank slate. Give old "trolls" an opportunity to redeem themselves, prove themselves not to be trolls. If they repeatedly fail, that's something else. But even then, best to ignore them when they're acting trollish, engage when they're acting non-trollish.
Overall I think CH has been remarkably successful at that (leaving shit behind, moving on), with some occasional exceptions (nobody's perfect). Kumbaya.
Chickie, I did not see that and I would've called Titus on it if I had. I don't know what your and Trooper's falling out with him was over and I don't care. I like you Chickie and I wouldn't want to see anyone abuse you.
Icepick, now you are being silly. I gave that as an example of one time I DID engage him directly and it went well. You are looking for stuff to fight about now, whatever. I was seriously and honestly trying to point out some things that went on at Althouse, continue here and it doesn't make this place any different or better.
But here's what I'd say to everyone: try to leave shit from the past, old grievances and resentments from TOP, behind. A provisional blank slate.
I couldn't disagree more. The past matters. Positions held matter. Votes matter. Actions have consequences.
Never forget. Never forgive. Hate for hate. And anyone that voted for Obama voted for more failure, pure and simple. They deserve ridicule, scorn, and a chainsaw up the ass.
I thinkit's rather odd that it's needed though, Inga. I think yashu is right that there are a lot of reflexive kinds of actions, and the situation of being in the minority and being unfairly characterized triggers those reactions. I just think that the people doing the provocative stuff and those who take the bait should both stop it.
I was seriously and honestly trying to point out some things that went on at Althouse
And what about your own super-trollish behavior? You act like you've never gone after anyone, or been an insulting little turd, or gone out of your way to insult people's families and revel in the miseries others experience. I've been on the receiving end of that myself.
Icepick said... Inga and ARM are funny. They vote for the impoverishment of their countrymen, proudly and happily, and then complain about being called names. What a couple of pussies.
I am not really complaining about the name calling. In fact I am pissed that all my name calling posts got deleted (fascists!!!). What I am complaining about is the loss of a good forum to discuss things, which we had at Althouse, albeit flawed in many ways, and initially seemed like we might have here. I genuinely miss the give and take of the old site. When there was something on my mind I could always go there and test out my ideas and get a lot of interesting feedback. It was largely a numbers game. Many of the posts were stupid but the site was big enough to attract some interesting points of view. To make this much smaller site work it was necessary to at least maintain the initial cohort of commenters, but some people just didn't get the memo.
The past matters. Positions held matter. Votes matter. Actions have consequences.
Oh, agreed. I'm not saying we should let go of political antagonisms. Shit's serious. It's reasonable to feel anger; natural for political arguments to get heated.
What I'm talking about is more the personal shit, childish (or high school) histrionics.
But there's an opportunity for some interesting-- and unpredictable-- political discussions with our antagonists, too. Second-Obama-term is an interesting political time, when a lot of the black/ white, left/ right dichotomies have gotten a lot more complicated. There are interesting arguments/ divisions within each side; arguments/ divisions that cut across, and not (just) between, left and right, Democrat and Republican. (As a small-l-libertarian, I find those discussions especially interesting.)
Knee-jerk partisan name-calling-- when it gets too personal-- can inhibit that.
What I am complaining about is the loss of a good forum to discuss things, which we had at Althouse, albeit flawed in many ways, and initially seemed like we might have here
I too miss the freewheeling back and forth. There are some very interesting, amusing and intelligent commentators on the internet. We can just side step those comments that are not productive to the conversation or that exist just to insult or harass. Think of it as making your way through a cow pasture. It really isn't necessary to step on the cow pies. Step around them.
Icepick - I have plenty of chainsaws - I would be willing to give you one on the condition that you not return it. No telling what is lurking up the ass of most liberals. Well, there is, as it spews out of their mouth as well.
I am so much better than all of you bitches, here, at TOP, in your dreams, and in the records at the NSA. In all these places, I'm clearly superior to you all, so I would like to respectfully say Fuck You! Now go ahead and try to punch up. Ha ha! You can't even reach me with those short little arms of jelly.
This is the best comment on this site since the very earliest days, when Bagoh opened up a thread with:
I don't give a shit - I'll walk right in here butt naked, drunk, and frisky. Where's the jacuzzi?
This was already specifically requested of everyone, but unfortunately ARM and Inga both refused. Now they whine that Ed did also.
You want to back that up with some facts? Can't can you? I haven't picked a fight with anyone until today, and today it had nothing to do with Althouse's blog and everything to do with the baleful effect that edutcher has had on this blog.
AReasonableMan said... Only you fail to understand calling those who don't see things as you do traitors is not leaving the old nastiness behind.
You really are fixated on this aren't you. Lighten up. I used the same rhetoric that was used during the Iraq war, with the ideological positions reversed. There was nothing particularly novel about what I said. I was a routine rhetorical device.
Apparently it is OK to call liberals traitors in your mind since you don't seem to have had any objection to the same arguments being used during the lead up to the Iraq war.
AReasonableMan said... Apparently it is OK to call liberals traitors in your mind since you don't seem to have had any objection to the same arguments being used during the lead up to the Iraq war.
I see you're still making up your "evidence". Very Reasonable.
I see you're still making up your "evidence". Very Reasonable.
I would be happy to hear your full-blooded defense of those of us who were against the Iraq war. Not traitors at all were we? In fact now everybody pretty much agrees with us.
So not only haven't left the Althouse nastiness behind, you're also still hanging onto what other people may have said about other things a decade ago.
But you think I'm the one fixated. Introspection's not a strong point on the left.
Today the Iranians are stating that they will retaliate. According to the WSJ they're planning to attack our embassy in Baghdad. Does Obama really expect the Syrians and their backers to do nothing? Does he really think they'll just lie there and take it? What does he think they are, the American electorate?
AReasonableMan said... As usual Marshall you have everything wrong. You were the one that couldn't let go of one post in the past. Both fixated and delusion.
Either the past began sometime last month or you believe your own standards don't apply to you.
You assert my identifing a comment you actually made a few weeks ago is a problem because it's "in the past" while criticizing me for something someone else may or may not have said a decade ago. In my book respectful dialogue requires an effort toward honesty, maybe you can explain why criticizing you for your actual words is unfair but criticizing me for someone else's is fine.
And it's not one post, it's your entire oeuvre. You casually call people traitors or assert political leaders you disagree with could not possibly be doing what they think is best for America, or criticize people for things they've only said in your mind. All of this before whining that others aren't respectful enough of you. That you don't even realize how antithetical these things are to the spirit Lem tried to instill here or even common decency shows there's no hope for reform.
Marshall your post is completely hypocritical. You never said a word about edutcher's efforts to run off all the liberals from this site. Now the blog is tedious because only a few right wingers are left and they just sit around and nod their heads in agreement about how Obama and liberals are bad.
It has been a completely wasted opportunity made possible by the hypocrisy of people like you. At the outset if there had been a more open acceptance of a range of views this blog would now be in much better shape. The only person on the right who was open minded enough to recognize this was Pastafarian and he seems to have been outvoted.
Wah, wah, wah. For years, every criticism of Obama was characterized as racist. That was on your side, ARM. Did you protest that? I never noticed you doing that.
Althouse decided to throw all the commenters off her site and then blame people for being conservative. She sent out her little lawn boy to come around and piss on the opinion of anyone that didn't kiss her ass. That's all liberal bullshit, from your side, and so far the only criticism I've seen of you on that front is that edutcher is mean to you and other liberals.
Liberals who have acquiesced to the idea that any criticism of Obama is racist don't deserve any respect or civility from anyone that isn't a lick-spittle sycophant of your great liberal God. You certainly don't have a problem with poisoning the atmosphere by calling all dissent unpatriotic and racist, so take you complaints about civility and shove them all the way up your ass until you gag on them.
Especially since you make a point of being such tight friends with the Ingas of the world.
Obama voters just don't deserve respect from any citizen. Hate for hate.
Icepick, your whininess is ridiculous. Althouse and Meade aren't liberals. Meade is quite right wing. And, I am not complaining about civility, like Marshall is, I am complaining about idiots like edutcher who don't have the brains to let a good situation develop into a better one. A complete lack of self awareness and self control.
But you have want you wanted now and still you are whining about liberals. There are no liberals left on this site.
AReasonableMan said... Now the blog is tedious because only a few right wingers are left and they just sit around and nod their heads in agreement about how Obama and liberals are bad.
There's your oeuvre again. No one else has any interesting insight, only through your intervention can anyone else see the light. And to this end do you have anything interesting to offer as Althouse does? Something not conventional wisdom among every other leftist defending the shield? No, only the most recent Leftist Conventional Wisdom. Boring.
In fact the righties here are far more insightful, varied, and honest.
It has been a completely wasted opportunity made possible by the hypocrisy of people like you.
You keep saying that word. FYI, it doesn't mean "anything I dislike". You're the one who wasted the opportunity to contribute.
At the outset if there had been a more open acceptance of a range of views this blog would now be in much better shape.
There is a great desire for a wide array of honest viewpoints. Unfortunately they don't seem to be available from the left.
The only person on the right who was open minded enough to recognize this was Pastafarian and he seems to have been outvoted.
And, I am not complaining about civility, like Marshall is, I am complaining about idiots like edutcher who don't have the brains to let a good situation develop into a better one.
By doing what, never objecting to whatever you have to say? B fawning all over liberal positions that he doesn't hold? By not holding yoyu bastards to the same standards you set for everyone else?
And Althouse is quite liberal, and made a point of only going after conservative commenters, despite plenty of poisonous crap coming from the liberal side. But she encouraged that.
As for Meade's alleged conservatism - I doubt it. He says and does whatever will get a rise out of people. I doubt he believes in much of anything except himself.
Icepick said... As for Meade's alleged conservatism - I doubt it.
This obsession with ideological purity is a big part of the problem. An intolerance even towards similarly minded people. It has more in common with belonging to a religious cult than being a citizen of the country.
AReasonableMan said... This is the problem in a nutshell. So wrapped up in your own self-righteousness you fail to see how closed you are to any other viewpoints.
It is true I'm closed to the idea that I'm a traitor because I feel free to criticize Benghazi. This isn't because I'm closed to viewpoints generally. It's because I reject insane viewpoints out of hand.
This isn't self-righteousness, it's what reasonable people do. An (admittedly extreme) example of self-righteousness would be to claim that the viewpoints on this blog are tedious without mine.
I have been away and just caught up with this thread.
I think you are better than this ARM. Ed is entitled to his opinion and he wants to give somebody a nickname in his post what is the big deal. The attacks on him at TOP by the Nutty Perfessor and her collection of flying monkeys were totally out of bounds. So why not give us your reasoned analysis as to why Obama wants to be Al Gaeda's Air Force.
I would seriously like to know how you can defend this. Thanks.
Oh and by the way....based on edutcher's opinions about "The Searchers" I have consigned him to the drawer with Corky and Trip Palin. So lets just be kind and not stress about it. Okey-Dokey?
AReasonableMan said... It is an indefensible statement, unless you believe all wisdom and insight originates from the right, which would be delusional.
This is what I mean by dishonesty. The context of that statement was honest viewpoints here, at this site. Leftists are used to playing fast with the facts, you have to when your governing philosophy is rejected by reality. But as you already noted there are only a few leftists here, and none are honest or insightful, which is hardly surprising given that Althouse herself was the only insightful and honest left leaning commenter at her site.
The rest of you seemed to be there only because it upset your sense of propriety that a conversation could occur without being dominated by the leftist conventional wisdom. You've never written anything that fifty columnists from Slate, WAPO, MSNBC, the LAT, KOS, TPM, and the DNC website haven't written a thousand times, which is what makes your assertion that this site blows without your opinions so ridiculous.
Marshall, you proved the statement to be indefensible with your last rant. In your mind, of all the left leaning commenters on Althouse, not one of them had anything useful or interesting to say. That is almost the definition of a closed mind. Why do you bother responding to these idiots then? Just ignore them. Althouse herself is not a leftist. Somewhat like Mickey Kaus she is a self-hating liberal, although like him she seems to mainly hate other liberals. She doesn't count.
With respect to a governing philosophy being rejected by reality, are you familiar with the Great Bush Recession? That's reality baby.
Trooper York said... I think you are better than this ARM.
No I'm not. Morons piss me off, just like they piss everybody else off.
I can largely ignore special ed but I am pissed off by the fact that the left leaning posters have all deserted this site and I understand why. It is just not worth the effort without some sense of support. Althouse's schizophrenic approach to the world gave the illusion of support, for both sides. This site has become monochromatic and lefties may as well just go and piss people off at RedState, where there is bigger audience.
You've never written anything that fifty columnists from Slate, WAPO, MSNBC, the LAT, KOS, TPM, and the DNC website haven't written a thousand times, which is what makes your assertion that this site blows without your opinions so ridiculous.
This may be true in the same sense that it is true that I rarely read something here or on Althouse that I haven't already read on Drudge, WSJ, RedState, Daily Caller, etc. or heard previously on Rush. The point, which you clearly fail to grasp, is that it is good to have discussions across the ideological divide. It may not change anybody's mind, and it certainly won't change the world, but it is a means to work out your own way of thinking and expose internal contradictions and some flat out nonsense. You would clearly benefit from posting on Kos or Yglesias some time. I was amazed on Althouse that most people had no idea who Glenn Greenwald was. And this was among people who prided themselves as 'libertarians'. An open mind is a useful tool with which to understand the world, even if you have a core set of principles that are largely fixed.
This may be true in the same sense that it is true that I rarely read something here or on Althouse that I haven't already read on Drudge, WSJ, RedState, Daily Caller, etc. or heard previously on Rush.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? It is the conversation that is important. It is not necessary to dominate and 'win' every debate. There is no winning, everything is temporary and conditional. Look at our world now, filled with peaceniks.
AReasonableMan said... Althouse herself is not a leftist. Somewhat like Mickey Kaus she is a self-hating liberal, although like him she seems to mainly hate other liberals. She doesn't count.
And to think just a few posts ago you ranted about how ideological purity was such a problem. Understanding how your assertions reflect on your own positions has never been your strong point.
In truth Althouse and Kaus are honest liberals, recognizing that even policies they or their party support have negative impacts and discussing those costs openly. This is level of intellectual integrity rare on the left, probably because their dominance of the media and therefore low information voters means integrity comes with an electoral risk.
I give both of them a lot of credit: they're willing to take heat for fighting for a better left: a reasonable, honest left. And they have to accept that far-left lunatics will claim they are self-hating or make similar ridiculous attacks. In the academy and media (and government although not applicable here) this is no small cost.
Marshal said... It would be if we had honest liberals. But we only have you so it's a waste of time.
But according to you there are no honest liberals. Of the hundreds of liberals that posted on Althouse over the years, not an honest man or woman among them.
It is not necessary to dominate and 'win' every debate.
It appears to be necessary for Althouse to win every debate. It appears necessary for Wisconsin liberals (Feingold, Soglin) to "win" every debate; it appears necessary for President Obama to "win" every debate (he only admitted to losing ("taking a shellacking in the 2010 mid-terms" once). From TOP to bottom, this is what confronts conservatives. I think that you conflate a desire not to lose with a desire to win. There is no middle ground with people like Althouse and Obama.
AReasonableMan said... Marshal said... In truth Althouse and Kaus are honest liberals,
I am assuming
If you didn't have assumptions you wouldn't have anything to criticize at all.
AReasonableMan said... But according to you there are no honest liberals. Of the hundreds of liberals that posted on Althouse over the years, not an honest man or woman among them.
I guess we can put selection bias down as another concept you don't understand. That's getting to be a long list.
El Pollo Raylan said... It appears to be necessary for Althouse to win every debate.
I don't feel any need to defend Althouse, I had a lot of issues with her views myself. The point is that her comments section boasted a broad range of views, which is what made it interesting. By fixating on ideological purity I think this site has suffered in terms of general interest and with it the loss of readership. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that I am wrong.
Marshall, do you have a point? You don't like liberals. That is an irrational emotion that you are flailing around trying to justify. It doesn't constitute a rational argument.
AReasonableMan said... Marshall, do you have a point? You don't like liberals. That is an irrational emotion that you are flailing around trying to justify. It doesn't constitute a rational argument.
Many points, no one else seems to have trouble understanding them. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.
And I like liberals just fine. I don't like dishonest leftists.
Marshal said... And I like liberals just fine. I don't like dishonest leftists.
But according to you not a single person of the left persuasion on Althouse met your personal criteria of being likable or honest. This is not really credible, if you have an open mind towards people that are your ideological opposites. You are very emotionally invested in your dislike of liberals which is why I think you are expressing emotions in search of a rational argument rather than really thinking through what you are saying.
A little history for ARM: this blog was started by Lem with a little help from his friends after Althouse shut down comments. The original mission was to keep open conversation going on every topic. She decided that discussion should end on a variety of topics (do you need chirbit links to recall these?)
It is still next to impossible to have a back and forth discussion with other commenters at her place because of transmission delays between earth and Althouse. Minutes become hours.
What her new system has enabled are comments pretty much directed at her alone, which is what I think she wanted (at least that's what I felt when I continued to comment there for a while). Imagine having to filter every thought here through Lem, Chip, Pasta, Palladian, deborah, synova.
You are lucky to have the sort of discussion and attention you are getting getting here.
I understand Marshall's viewpoint perfectly well, but I don't understand yours. I made a serious effort to make this site work at the beginning but the facts speak for themselves, as a site where you can have a conversation crossing ideological lines this site has not worked. Now, maybe that was not the goal and I misunderstood this, but that was not my impression at least initially.
Blogger AReasonableMan said. Garage was very nice guy. Most people seemed to agree on that.
Some people liked him because of his personal interests. But he literally never seriously engaged a conservative idea. His goal was to disrupt serious conversations by distraction. A propagandist.
AReasonableMan said... Let's hear it in your own words.
The part that's relevant here would seem to be that it's impossible to have a serious conversation with someone not interested in a serious conversation.
Marshal said... The part that's relevant here would seem to be that it's impossible to have a serious conversation with someone not interested in a serious conversation.
ARM said.... I don't feel any need to defend Althouse, I had a lot of issues with her views myself. The point is that her comments section boasted a broad range of views, which is what made it interesting. By fixating on ideological purity I think this site has suffered in terms of general interest and with it the loss of readership. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that I am wrong.
In fact the Evil Blogger Lady herded out most of her conservatives because her friends in Madison asked her why she was "allowing" bigots to post on her blog. So most if not all of the principled conservatives came here where there is an open forum with free speech paramount. The people remaining are the hardcore leftists like Inga and hdhouse as well as the toady's and sycophants and the occasional hardcore Anti-Semite like Cedarford. If you think that is a conversation worth having than I would like some of what you are smoking.
Oh and by the way...I tried to ask you a reasonable question that you did not address.
Why do you support this action in Syria. Are you in the Eleanor Holmes Norton wing of the kissing Obama ass dept? Or are you such a partisan Democrat that you will be for this action when you were totally against Iraq and are just reversing your position because it is a Democrat in charge?
I think you are a pretty smart guy. You must realize that this is one of the dumbest foreign policy moves in American history.
I really would appreciate your analysis in a substantive manner.
ARM, I think you started out in this thread blaming Ed for single-handedly chasing away libs. Then you seemed to switch your argument to no one wants to discuss serious stuff with the libs. Or something...not dissing you, but just don't want to scroll back up.
The salient fact you are leaving out is that not only are there less libs, there are less cons. This is a function this being a small site. After the initial excitement, things settled down to a daily normal. This place isn't big enough to support Ed's nick names, huge flame wars, etc. People back off getting nasty because the small size of the commentariat shows any non-polite stuff in bold relief. This is a nice little site, and maybe it will grow. But for now, you're going to have to deal with the reality of a small population. People will drop by now and again, and that will be great :)
If you put an email in your profile, you can send me a piece you've written, that may draw out the conversation you'd like to have.
Trooper York said... In fact the Evil Blogger Lady herded out most of her conservatives because her friends in Madison asked her why she was "allowing" bigots to post on her blog. So most if not all of the principled conservatives came here where there is an open forum with free speech paramount. The people remaining are the hardcore leftists like Inga and hdhouse as well as the toady's and sycophants and the occasional hardcore Anti-Semite like Cedarford. If you think that is a conversation worth having than I would like some of what you are smoking.
I think you misunderstand me re Althouse: the site used to be a very good place to discuss things, before the deluge. It is useless now and I haven't had a positive thing to say about it since then. My broader point, which I have tried to make in a variety of ways is that the positive aspects of the old site could have been reproduced here but some people just cannot accept divergent views as part of life and have acted to squeeze out the broader range of views. I find this personally frustrating because I miss the mix of personalities that the old site brought together. My personal feelings aren't going to change anything however and I am giving up.
By fixating on ideological purity I think this site has suffered in terms of general interest and with it the loss of readership. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that I am wrong.
I think this is wrong. I went to Althouse for politics and contemporary social commentary. I respect the commenters positions, but I find many fewer such topics here.
I always found discussions between the right more interesting. Conversations with leftist ideologues always degenerate into first principles (among the intelligent) or idiocy (such as assertions Republicans are looting the country for the rich). Neither is interesting. There are honest liberals, but they're talking amongst themselves for the same reasons.
And speaking of Althouse, I think the reason her honesty drew so many conservatives was that she debated non-leftist beliefs legitimately. She argued the costs, benefits, rights and wrongs of conservative ideas just as she does the left's beliefs. This was quite different from the overwhelming majority of the left who simply shout bigot as if it's a compelling point. And I think this is what led to much of the overwrought feeling at the end, because those people who so appreciated that fact about her felt a more personal reaction to her shouting bigot at them.
deborah said... ARM, I think you started out in this thread blaming Ed for single-handedly chasing away libs.
This is a very reasonable response to a very frustrated one. My posts on ed were done with the understanding that I was burning my bridges. I think you may be underestimating how off-putting it was to have to deal with a few of the old battles on this site but I do understand that there was a broad decline in numbers. It is unfortunate. I think the moderators made a mistake by not quickly embracing a range of views in the masthead at the outset. It is difficult to reverse things now. But, maybe you are right and things would have played out similarly whatever strategy was taken.
If you put an email in your profile, you can send me a piece you've written, that may draw out the conversation you'd like to have.
I have never blogged and have not really looked to start. I will think about this. Trooper brings up a good point on which I am quite conflicted but not sure I have the skills to express. Thanks anyway. Not playing hard to get. I will get back to you.
I would be happy to hear what you have to say ARM. It doesn't even have to be political. Pick any topic that interest you and give us the liberal view.
Suggested topics: A-Rod and blowing off his suspension, Obama wanting to blow off the Olympics because of the Russians stance on gays or Aaron Rodgers blowing Ryan Braun.
I don't see why this has to be a political/ideological issue at all, and seriously lament the fact that here, at least, it has to be one.
The issue of dealing with the breach of an 88-year old chemical weapons convention is a serious and complicated one. Spoiler alert: I was just out of the country and heard David Cameron (anyone here heard of him?) arguing an even more strident case for action than Obama did. The British public and politicians were way against any action but at least their splits were not political.
Obama did not make this event occur. He is getting a bit blustery, but that's due to the fact that no one here even thinks about the actual forensic case for anything. Who ordered the attack? Was it an element in the regime unrelated and disloyal to Assad, in order to provoke retaliation against his regime intentionally? No one here even bothers to look at those crucial questions, so of course we have to now sit back and wade through the muck of responses over how forcefully The American Empire will respond, and with the assumption that said response should somehow influence the tug-of-war in a political hellhole where every faction is equally horrible.
Does that justify allowing the attacks to stand? Of course not. But then, why should that be the concern of anyone here when the difficult position of any American president faced with that just so happens to occur on the watch of someone they hate, right? It surely can't be patriotic to take post-WWI conventions seriously when you can make the challenge they present political.
For what it's worth, I don't think Althousie understood herself (or a lot of other things) enough for a political/ideological viewpoint to mean much to her. I think on some things she might have came across as either left or right, but her big deal was basically being a populist sycophant, not a bad place in which for a narcissist like her to be. Actual philosophies were very secondary to any of that, for her at least.
And in any event, why should the rest of us (non-narcissits) even bother to so strongly uphold ideological affiliations, regardless? As I just commented, listening to David Cameron and his opposition Labour Party convinced me just how opportunistic almost all of politics is and can be. Ideology is way over-rated. Over there the Syria debate was 180-degrees inverted from what it is here. The fact is we have a complicated issue to either deal with or ignore and we do no one any favors by setting aside the objective arguments in favor of farcical debates over the optics of action (as everyone here, from Stewart to the Iraq chickenhawks to Obama, is doing). At least in other quarters, the argument over the consequences of appearing to lead is considered separately from the much more serious issues of who did what and why what should be done about it.
Rits, I find the whole chemical weapons approach a non-starter. 100,000 people killed in Syria, and we're going to take action on the fig leaf of 1000 dying by gas? When we can't know if it was a false flag op by the rebels, or even another nation, including us.
It comes down to what the desired outcome is if we destroy Assad's air force, runways, installations, etc., versus what will actually happen
(Unfortunately?) the chemical weapons thing is the only real starter. The convention against it is 88 years old, dating back to an interest in ending the horrors of WWI - which killed many more people, much more quickly than Assad has. There are some directives in international law that say you can't kill your own people, democide is bad, yada yada yada, but they are not as definitive, binding or strong. Having been abroad in another recent and successful empire, it's interesting to see how things work differently. Americans, perhaps because they are a current empire, and a very "can-do" one at that, mistake their power to act (esp. when removed from budgeting) and moral impulse to act with very strong historical and legal precedents for acting.
Apart from that, you are very right to engage both forensic and operational concerns. We don't know who did it, and the debate abroad on determining that was much better than here. There are very good reasons to think Assad didn't, but that perhaps someone in his regime, who wants to ignite a conflagration against him, did. And yes, the whole debate everywhere devolves into what good military action will do. Just because there should be a sanction against the act, does not mean that we would or should in any way want to intercede in such a way as to affect the outcome of that civil war on behalf of any of the belligerents. None of them deserve to be in charge of anything, morally speaking - and to act in the clear political or military benefit/advantage of any one of them would be abhorrent to our interests.
But these are the complexities that matter, and that unfortunately no one voices as articulately as they should - unless all the doubt that's rightfully raised in places like this one is a reflection of that.
"None of them deserve to be in charge of anything, morally speaking - and to act in the clear political or military benefit/advantage of any one of them would be abhorrent to our interests."
Iran and Russia are aiding the Assad side. Do you think this changes the equation in any way?
In general, I think the Shia are more reasoned than the Sunni. Yet we back the Sunni because we have political ties with SA, Qatar, and Israel (simplified version).
What I think is going down is Putin and Obama are having a gentleman's pissing contest, and neither will get crazy, but each will tend to manage their own side (sect) fairly well.
Iran and Russia are aiding the Assad side. Do you think this changes the equation in any way?
Of course. It always does. They are most unhelpful and I wish they could just go away. But part of their moral failing is to always look at things politically. We should too, but only as one concern out of a number of concerns.
In general, I think the Shia are more reasoned than the Sunni. Yet we back the Sunni because we have political ties with SA, Qatar, and Israel (simplified version).
The Shia are more used to being a cautious minority in the region, and their history of governing with that in mind shows. I'd say it's more fear (if mixed with a nervous pride in Iran) than reason.
But this observation can be taken too far. Obviously Iran is a pretty unhelpful country - to understate things in the extreme. I think populations that have a history of not leading can be bad at it, as even Iran's ayatollahs show even more than 30 years after coming to power.
Assad's Shia-allied Allawis have a longer and more stable history of leading Syria - at least internally, but there are limits to everything, esp. given the amount of control that takes. They're a minority supporting a dictatorship that brought in Iranian-backed Hizbollah for moral/tribal support, and that's not stabilizing either.
What I think is going down is Putin and Obama are having a gentleman's pissing contest, and neither will get crazy, but each will tend to manage their own side (sect) fairly well.
I believe (or at least hope) that Obama knows Putin is a worthless thug (if one we can usually ignore), and is acting on the geopolitical calculation that the French (remember them? They've got a Security Council vote/veto too. ;-)) will provide the push that we ironically expect them to back down from. The stereotype here is that they're cowards, but they have longstanding ties to (which in their mind, equals interests) in that region. They've got their own imperialist memories, too.
"But part of their moral failing is to always look at things politically."
They both have problems with Sunni surrounding populations. E.G., Afghanistan to the east of Iran. We have launched CIA ops to cause Afghans to enter Iran and cause internal tensions. This after Iran agreed to recover any of our downed pilots in their territory at the beginning of the Afghan War.
re French vote, it only takes one veto, and between China and Russia, there are two.
We need Russia's cooperation to leave Afghanistan using a (partially) northern rail route. Whether we do a token bombing of Syria probably doesn't matter much in the long run.
Fun scenario: before the end of Obama's term, Putin 'brings' Obama and Iran to the table. Quid pro quo for Putin 'giving in' on Syrian action.
Great chat! You have the last word, if you wish :)
Thanks Deb ;-). I'm enjoying this, too. No need to see something as a "last word" when they're pretty far from antagonistic, but I'm glad we can get at least closer to the bottom of such a bottomless pit of pitifulness as the issue of Syria.
Re, your other points, I agree with a lot of them. Predictable vetoes prevent SC action so I'm not sure what role taking this to the UN provides other than to press the issue.
I think Russia's problem is forever looking at itself as in the geographic middle of everything: Sitting between Europe, a crumbled caliphate, China. If that weren't bad enough, the only escape from any of that is Siberia! They sure seem to love playing the role of the perpetual spoiler.
I like your fun scenario but unfortunately nations tend to bargain for as much power as they can and I'm not sure what that raging pimple Putin feels he would get out of such a deal - unless it somehow appeals once again to that Russian ideal of spoiler or a regional balancing act. If it's pulled off though and Obama could get something out of a negotiation with Iran then I guess it would vindicate his dealings somewhat, but I'm starting from a pessimistic starting point on that.
Let's hope that Obama never sits down at the negotiating table with Putin. Putin has zero respect for Obama. He sees him as the kid he used to take his lunch money and give him a wedgie.
Obama would probably sell Alaska back to Russia and say he did it to get rid of Sarah Palin. The Dems would come in their pants.
Let's hope that Obama never sits down at the negotiating table with Putin. Putin has zero respect for Obama. He sees him as the kid he used to take his lunch money and give him a wedgie.
Obama would probably sell Alaska back to Russia and say he did it to get rid of Sarah Palin. The Dems would come in their pants.
164 comments:
"You can't use chemicals to kill your own people. You have to do it organically."
ok- that was funny.
The obligatory - take Ted Cruz out of context - is thrown in for good measure.
Hey, he's a commie, you can't take that away from him, even if his messiah is on the side of al Qaeda.
Notice how leftwing Jon mocks conservatives while Obama and his gang of morons are in charge.
Jon has to go back in time to make a point about circa now. The clips he shows are old and out of context - but the clips bring the hate and create the necessary party functionary distraction.
Jon Stewart is a full blown party hack. He's funny - but he's a hack.
He's out of practice and trying way too hard. The band major bit...ugh.
Great point, April.
No enemies on the left.
Deborah - you are right - He is trying way too hard.
Even the Lefties see how phony they are.
In 2008, a law professor told me that the Democrats would be forced to take responsibility for foreign policy if we elected Obama. Back then I didn't know how dumb law professors can be. I learned a lot at TOP.
You want comedy?
Pam Geller discusses the "Franz Ferdinand" scenario as Russian warships head for Syrian waters.
First as tragedy, then as farce.
@Bagoh
lol. I didn't see that coming.
And btw . . . isn't Cruz with Rand on non intervention? How come Stewart's making him out to be a hawk?
Because he can. Facts are meaningless to hacks.
If Jon Stewart hadn't been continuously fellating Der Preezy he might have seen this coming, instead.
Did he show Kerry?
Yeah, Kerry circa 2004 and now is a treasure trove. But remember, dissent is no longer Patriotic.
Got a job yet ed? Instead of wasting your time on the internet go and get a job.
There aren't enough jobs to go around in this Leftist Hell that you and your fe3llows have created. Eat ghit and die screaming, Democrat.
Is Lurch even human? If he is, he has to be the last of the lost race from Easter Island, or he's a member of the undocumented cooks known as the Kanamits.
More on jobs in the Democratic economic wonderland:
The recession, for all its brutality, was comparatively egalitarian, said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist. It struck the young and old, educated and uneducated, white collar and blue collar. The recovery, by contrast, has been asymmetric: Those who held on to their jobs or quickly found new ones have made up much of the ground they lost, while the jobless continue to suffer.
"If you've made it through and you're still employed, your stock portfolio has recovered, your house price is recovering, too," Mr. Burtless said. "For the unemployed, this has been a miserable recovery compared to pretty much any of the postwar recoveries."
Recent studies in both the U.S. and overseas found employers often won't even consider the long-term jobless for openings.
Many have given up applying. Nearly seven million people say they want a job but aren't actively looking for work.
Although I would dispute the bit about those that kept jobs are doing better. The median wage keeps falling whole the cost of pretty much everything keeps rising.
There are jobs for people with marketable skills who don't go out of their way to poison their environment.
Translation: toe the PC redline or suffer the consequences.
What bullshit, ARM. We're five million full-time jobs short of where we were six years ago. That's after four+ years of 'recovery'. At least seven million people have dropped out of the workforce even though they want jobs: There are none to be had, and once one becomes long-term unemployed, businesses won't even look at resumes or applications anymore. Why? Too many people are looking for jobs, and it is the easiest and first filter the HR people have.
This is YOUR economic wonderland, bitch. Own it, and own the destruction of people's lives that you've caused. Worst of all, evil little shits like you think this is a wonderful thing, because you love nothing better than seeing people destroyed so that your party can thereby profit.
Translation: toe the PC redline or suffer the consequences.
That's not even it, El Pollo. Blacks turned out in huge numbers last year to vote for more of this, and they're suffering the most.
Is ARM a Titus sockpuppet?
Note too the usual MO. Obama and the Democrats can't POSSIBLY be responsible for the worst recovery since they started keeping records. No way! The reason all those unemployed people are unemployed is because they're bad people and deserve it.
There's your compassion for the poor, right there, Leftist-style.
Also note that since blacks are getting hit disproportionately, ARM is stating that black people are disproportionately nasty people that deserve to be unemployed.
Racist and classist, but no one is really surprised by such behavior form a leftist these days, are they?
Icepick said...
Note too the usual MO. Obama and the Democrats can't POSSIBLY be responsible for the worst recovery since they started keeping records. No way! The reason all those unemployed people are unemployed is because they're bad people and deserve it.
There's your compassion for the poor, right there, Leftist-style.
Also note that since blacks are getting hit disproportionately, ARM is stating that black people are disproportionately nasty people that deserve to be unemployed.
Racist and classist, but no one is really surprised by such behavior form a leftist these days, are they?
Oh bullshit. I am talking specifically about special ed, ostensibly a well educated white guy.
ARM wrote: Oh bullshit. I am talking specifically about special ed, ostensibly a well educated white guy.
ARM also wrote:
There are jobs for people with marketable skills who don't go out of their way to poison their environment.
So, what about the seven million who have dropped out? What about the younger people that can't even get IN? What about the millions still looking (unsuccessfully) for work and failing to find anything good? And why did they suddenly become unskilled and toxic five years ago?
No, you don't get off that easy, ARM, because of what you wrote, and what you support. This is your economy, bitch, own it, and own the destruction. For once in your miserable cretinous life, take responsibility for what you say and do, asshole.
El Pollo Raylan said...
Is ARM a Titus sockpuppet?
Never had any trouble with Titus.
We've even agreed a couple of times IIRC.
I am perfectly happy to take responsibility for what I say. My topic for today has been edutcher and what a poison he is. No doubt he is also workplace poison. Inflexible, fixated and obsessive.
The employment situation is difficult but not that bad for the groups whom ed claims to belong to, upper class, well educated and, by his own self referential standards, a classy intellectual kind of guy.
You're lucky then, edutcher: link
edutcher said...
Never had any trouble with Titus.
You have never had any trouble with me either you moron. I normally ignore your tedious posts.
Althouse couldn't stand you, no left leaning poster on Althouse could stand you. You have achieved your goal. Ideological purity is within your grasp. Nasty little facist.
This is getting ridiculous.
ARM, interesting that your taking on Edutcher now. Why now? He cant help himself, he called me "She Wolf of the SS" again a few times here, only one person spoke up and said it was uncalled for. Ah well.
You're.
I am perfectly happy to take responsibility for what I say.
Bullshit, ARM, you're already trying to back out of what you wrote above, claiming that it only applies to one person. That would be true if there wasn't an employment crisis in this country. But there is, so you're attempt to say that everyone with skills and a good attitude is impossible to believe.
I know lots of professionals who are not only unemployed, they're LTUE. It's a cancer eating away at the economy. Hell, I have even known a couple of rocket scientist types who can't get work at WalMart now. No one wants the LTUEs, and they're legion now.
Hell, a legion was only 6000 men or so. We've got thousands and thousands of legions of LTUE. The federal government helpfully only classifies about two million as such, but they ignore the seven million or more who have dropped out.
I like it ARM, some folks need to be checked now and again.
ARM, you're overreacting.
I like to see lefties here; the argumentative friction is productive. You in particular are often a good interlocutor/ adversary. But (IMO, didn't see what see you off today) you're being totally unreasonable right now.
If ed gets your goat, there are plenty of other righties to converse & argue with. Why let one commenter affect you so?
Seems to me by personalizing things to this extent-- singling ed out for a torrent of insults-- you're the one importing some of the toxic stuff from TOP that was.
AA did pick on ed, personally, at the end there, unfairly IMO. And all the lefties jumped on the AA bandwagon, to gleefully insult him. That wasn't to your (the lefties') credit.
Let it go. It's not like ed is "jay."
didn't see what set you off today
Yashu, Edutcher has been calling ARM "An Unreasonable Troll" every time ARM posts. It's understandable that it finally got under his skin.
AReasonableMan said...
My topic for today has been edutcher and what a poison he is. No doubt he is also workplace poison. Inflexible, fixated and obsessive.
From someone who considers it acceptable to call those with different priorities traitors.
Inga said...
ARM, interesting that your taking on Edutcher now. Why now?
Yesterday I sat down at the computer and wanted to argue some shit re Syria. I went to Althouse and she has her fucking moderated comments and a bunch of yes men and then I came here and I thought, 'now I have to deal with this asshole'. So I closed the computer.
We had quite a good discussion group at Althouse, except for a few sociopaths, who were well diluted by a large number of reasonable people and then this site started out quite optimistically, but it just takes one asshole to wreck a party.
I am just frustrated with how things have played out. I don't anticipate any useful resolution, which is why I have never bothered saying anything until now. I even encouraged people to let the asshat do some posts of his own thinking that some acknowledgement and responsibility would settle him down. Some people are just never gonna get it.
Yashu,
One gets called names by Ed, even if they are not directly conversing with him. He quotes a commenter and then adds his insults, despite the fact that the comment was not directed at him. One cannot make a general comment without Edutcher grabbing it and responding in a nasty manner.
I don't understand why you folks tolerate this from him. Is it because he directs type of thing only at liberals? I understand that respect ARM and want to keep liberals like him here, but really with types like Edutcher, why would/should they? I am fairly immune to attacks from some here and don't really give a damn.
yashu said...
AA did pick on ed, personally, at the end there, unfairly IMO. And all the lefties jumped on the AA bandwagon, to gleefully insult him.
I didn't, so either I am not a lefty or you are over generalizing. I now understand Althouse's thinking, which I didn't at the time. Her solution has been a failure but I can see why she thought she couldn't get to where she wanted from where she was.
yashu said...
It's not like ed is "jay."
I preferred Jay. Even whoresoftheinternet was better.
Enjoy the decline.
Funny, I didn't call him out.
For that matter, I haven't given him a second's thought in weeks, but, out of a clear blue, he starts raving.
My guess is, the realization his Messiah is finally showing his true colors (no pun) is unhinging him.
PS I think I've referred to the former Oop maybe twice as the She-Wolf/Devil after she tried to pick a fight.
Most of the time, I just ignore her (trying to follow the rules) or call her, "sweetie".
As I say, they see Choom going up in his own smoke and it's getting to them.
PPS I think this may be in the way of a post hijack.
edutcher said...
PPS I think this may be in the way of a post hijack.
What a fucking moron.
Inga writes: I don't understand why you folks tolerate this from him. Is it because he directs type of thing only at liberals? I understand that respect ARM and want to keep liberals like him here, but really with types like Edutcher, why would/should they? I am fairly immune to attacks from some here and don't really give a damn.
Last week or so I started to put up some Robert Frost poetry posts but stopped because Titus insisted on defacing each and every one of them in the comments. Then he followed me to my own blog to continue. I never saw you even raise an eyebrow.
That is a lie Edutcher. I never try to engage you. I did speak to you about your wife's nursing blog and that conversation went well, you didn't resort to name calling there. I posted a political comment a few days ago and IMMEDIATLY you lapsed into your old behavior and used that She Wolf of the SS thing again. I was not addressing you there, why did you address me in the manner that you did?
I don't understand why you folks tolerate this from him
I am not part of the cool crowd here so I don't think this is directed at me but answering for myself, I would sat I would never think to call someone out on stuff like that because it is so silly, and so obviously better ignored IMO.
If it makes you guys feel better:
@edutcher- the nicknames are rather annoying, and weaken your posts and the position you argue from, in my opinion.
I agree that ed sometimes (unfortunately) is too quick to treat all left-of-center commenters like trolls, lumping them all together.
And unfortunately, when one is (unfairly) treated like a troll, that tends to provoke trollish behavior. So I get where ARM's annoyance and outburst is coming from.
But ed's been a target of abuse too, so I get where some of his contempt for TOP lefties is coming from, as well.
Hate to be the annoying one to sing kumbaya here (heh, shoot me now). But here's what I'd say to everyone: try to leave shit from the past, old grievances and resentments from TOP, behind. A provisional blank slate. Give old "trolls" an opportunity to redeem themselves, prove themselves not to be trolls. If they repeatedly fail, that's something else. But even then, best to ignore them when they're acting trollish, engage when they're acting non-trollish.
Overall I think CH has been remarkably successful at that (leaving shit behind, moving on), with some occasional exceptions (nobody's perfect). Kumbaya.
Chickie, I did not see that and I would've called Titus on it if I had. I don't know what your and Trooper's falling out with him was over and I don't care. I like you Chickie and I wouldn't want to see anyone abuse you.
Inga Responds To Edutcher
That is a lie Edutcher. I never try to engage you. I did speak to you about your wife's nursing blog ....
Priceless.
Thank you CStanley. That is all that is needed.
Hate to be the annoying one to sing kumbaya here (heh, shoot me now).
BLAM!
Icepick, now you are being silly. I gave that as an example of one time I DID engage him directly and it went well. You are looking for stuff to fight about now, whatever. I was seriously and honestly trying to point out some things that went on at Althouse, continue here and it doesn't make this place any different or better.
BLAM!
Thank you, much obliged.
But here's what I'd say to everyone: try to leave shit from the past, old grievances and resentments from TOP, behind. A provisional blank slate.
I couldn't disagree more. The past matters. Positions held matter. Votes matter. Actions have consequences.
Never forget. Never forgive. Hate for hate. And anyone that voted for Obama voted for more failure, pure and simple. They deserve ridicule, scorn, and a chainsaw up the ass.
Chickie, yes" respond" is the optimal word.
I thinkit's rather odd that it's needed though, Inga. I think yashu is right that there are a lot of reflexive kinds of actions, and the situation of being in the minority and being unfairly characterized triggers those reactions. I just think that the people doing the provocative stuff and those who take the bait should both stop it.
El Pollo, stop it! I can't take the chirbits, they're too funny!
I was seriously and honestly trying to point out some things that went on at Althouse
And what about your own super-trollish behavior? You act like you've never gone after anyone, or been an insulting little turd, or gone out of your way to insult people's families and revel in the miseries others experience. I've been on the receiving end of that myself.
So fuck you.
Icepick, insult someone's family? Are you as nuts as Edutcher? Oh well, some things never change, I'm done.
Lurch is not human. He's just substituting for Jane Fonda.
Icepick said...
Inga and ARM are funny. They vote for the impoverishment of their countrymen, proudly and happily, and then complain about being called names. What a couple of pussies.
I am not really complaining about the name calling. In fact I am pissed that all my name calling posts got deleted (fascists!!!). What I am complaining about is the loss of a good forum to discuss things, which we had at Althouse, albeit flawed in many ways, and initially seemed like we might have here. I genuinely miss the give and take of the old site. When there was something on my mind I could always go there and test out my ideas and get a lot of interesting feedback. It was largely a numbers game. Many of the posts were stupid but the site was big enough to attract some interesting points of view. To make this much smaller site work it was necessary to at least maintain the initial cohort of commenters, but some people just didn't get the memo.
The past matters. Positions held matter. Votes matter. Actions have consequences.
Oh, agreed. I'm not saying we should let go of political antagonisms. Shit's serious. It's reasonable to feel anger; natural for political arguments to get heated.
What I'm talking about is more the personal shit, childish (or high school) histrionics.
But there's an opportunity for some interesting-- and unpredictable-- political discussions with our antagonists, too. Second-Obama-term is an interesting political time, when a lot of the black/ white, left/ right dichotomies have gotten a lot more complicated. There are interesting arguments/ divisions within each side; arguments/ divisions that cut across, and not (just) between, left and right, Democrat and Republican. (As a small-l-libertarian, I find those discussions especially interesting.)
Knee-jerk partisan name-calling-- when it gets too personal-- can inhibit that.
What I am complaining about is the loss of a good forum to discuss things, which we had at Althouse, albeit flawed in many ways, and initially seemed like we might have here
I too miss the freewheeling back and forth. There are some very interesting, amusing and intelligent commentators on the internet. We can just side step those comments that are not productive to the conversation or that exist just to insult or harass. Think of it as making your way through a cow pasture. It really isn't necessary to step on the cow pies. Step around them.
:-P
What I am complaining about is the loss of a good forum to discuss things, which we had at Althouse....
So you're here to bitch at edutcher because Althouse blew up her comment section. Brilliant.
Inga wrote...
" *snip* Oh well, some things never change, I'm done."
Yeah, you have written that before. We shall see if you mean it this time, all praise be to Gaia.
bagoh20 said...
You can't even reach me with those short little arms of jelly.
Maybe, but I have a bigger dick, which is what the girls really want.
Icepick - I have plenty of chainsaws - I would be willing to give you one on the condition that you not return it. No telling what is lurking up the ass of most liberals. Well, there is, as it spews out of their mouth as well.
When did I say Oop (her old nom de net) tried to engage me?
Seems like she's just resurrecting her old rap from TOP.
Or something.
Apparently, she and Troll cooked up this routine to see how far they'd get.
If anybody has a better explanation, let's hear it.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
I am so much better than all of you bitches, here, at TOP, in your dreams, and in the records at the NSA. In all these places, I'm clearly superior to you all, so I would like to respectfully say Fuck You! Now go ahead and try to punch up. Ha ha! You can't even reach me with those short little arms of jelly.
This is the best comment on this site since the very earliest days, when Bagoh opened up a thread with:
I don't give a shit - I'll walk right in here butt naked, drunk, and frisky. Where's the jacuzzi?
edutcher said...
If anybody has a better explanation, let's hear it.
You are a fucking obnoxious idiot.
Hee hee, glad to see the usual suspects are grumpy now that their hero is well into his "Drone and Blame" routine.
This thread feels like old times on the boxwine bint's site.
Ah, nostalgia.
yashu said...
But here's what I'd say to everyone: try to leave shit from the past, old grievances and resentments from TOP, behind
This was already specifically requested of everyone, but unfortunately ARM and Inga both refused. Now they whine that Ed did also.
Marshal said...
This was already specifically requested of everyone, but unfortunately ARM and Inga both refused. Now they whine that Ed did also.
You want to back that up with some facts? Can't can you? I haven't picked a fight with anyone until today, and today it had nothing to do with Althouse's blog and everything to do with the baleful effect that edutcher has had on this blog.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Hee hee, glad to see the usual suspects are grumpy now that their hero is well into his "Drone and Blame" routine.
This thread feels like old times on the boxwine bint's site.
Ah, nostalgia.
Good to see you PMJ. We don't often get the lunatic fringe on this blog. It's a nice change of pace.
AReasonableMan said...
You want to back that up with some facts? Can't can you? I haven't picked a fight with anyone until today,
Only you fail to understand calling those who don't see things as you do traitors is not leaving the old nastiness behind.
I really liked when Meade posted a clip from Young Frank en Stein with the monster singing Puttin' on the Ritz.
"Super dooper" indeed (or "Super doper" per Apple whom knows more than you about what you want and need so shut it).
AReasonableMan said...
Only you fail to understand calling those who don't see things as you do traitors is not leaving the old nastiness behind.
You really are fixated on this aren't you. Lighten up. I used the same rhetoric that was used during the Iraq war, with the ideological positions reversed. There was nothing particularly novel about what I said. I was a routine rhetorical device.
Apparently it is OK to call liberals traitors in your mind since you don't seem to have had any objection to the same arguments being used during the lead up to the Iraq war.
AReasonableMan said...
Apparently it is OK to call liberals traitors in your mind since you don't seem to have had any objection to the same arguments being used during the lead up to the Iraq war.
I see you're still making up your "evidence". Very Reasonable.
Marshal said...
I see you're still making up your "evidence". Very Reasonable.
I would be happy to hear your full-blooded defense of those of us who were against the Iraq war. Not traitors at all were we? In fact now everybody pretty much agrees with us.
So not only haven't left the Althouse nastiness behind, you're also still hanging onto what other people may have said about other things a decade ago.
But you think I'm the one fixated. Introspection's not a strong point on the left.
Today the Iranians are stating that they will retaliate. According to the WSJ they're planning to attack our embassy in Baghdad. Does Obama really expect the Syrians and their backers to do nothing? Does he really think they'll just lie there and take it? What does he think they are, the American electorate?
As usual Marshall you have everything wrong. You were the one that couldn't let go of one post in the past. Both fixated and delusion.
"It's like we never left"
AReasonableMan said...
As usual Marshall you have everything wrong. You were the one that couldn't let go of one post in the past. Both fixated and delusion.
Either the past began sometime last month or you believe your own standards don't apply to you.
You assert my identifing a comment you actually made a few weeks ago is a problem because it's "in the past" while criticizing me for something someone else may or may not have said a decade ago. In my book respectful dialogue requires an effort toward honesty, maybe you can explain why criticizing you for your actual words is unfair but criticizing me for someone else's is fine.
And it's not one post, it's your entire oeuvre. You casually call people traitors or assert political leaders you disagree with could not possibly be doing what they think is best for America, or criticize people for things they've only said in your mind. All of this before whining that others aren't respectful enough of you. That you don't even realize how antithetical these things are to the spirit Lem tried to instill here or even common decency shows there's no hope for reform.
Marshall your post is completely hypocritical. You never said a word about edutcher's efforts to run off all the liberals from this site. Now the blog is tedious because only a few right wingers are left and they just sit around and nod their heads in agreement about how Obama and liberals are bad.
It has been a completely wasted opportunity made possible by the hypocrisy of people like you. At the outset if there had been a more open acceptance of a range of views this blog would now be in much better shape. The only person on the right who was open minded enough to recognize this was Pastafarian and he seems to have been outvoted.
Wah, wah, wah. For years, every criticism of Obama was characterized as racist. That was on your side, ARM. Did you protest that? I never noticed you doing that.
Althouse decided to throw all the commenters off her site and then blame people for being conservative. She sent out her little lawn boy to come around and piss on the opinion of anyone that didn't kiss her ass. That's all liberal bullshit, from your side, and so far the only criticism I've seen of you on that front is that edutcher is mean to you and other liberals.
Liberals who have acquiesced to the idea that any criticism of Obama is racist don't deserve any respect or civility from anyone that isn't a lick-spittle sycophant of your great liberal God. You certainly don't have a problem with poisoning the atmosphere by calling all dissent unpatriotic and racist, so take you complaints about civility and shove them all the way up your ass until you gag on them.
Especially since you make a point of being such tight friends with the Ingas of the world.
Obama voters just don't deserve respect from any citizen. Hate for hate.
Icepick, your whininess is ridiculous. Althouse and Meade aren't liberals. Meade is quite right wing. And, I am not complaining about civility, like Marshall is, I am complaining about idiots like edutcher who don't have the brains to let a good situation develop into a better one. A complete lack of self awareness and self control.
But you have want you wanted now and still you are whining about liberals. There are no liberals left on this site.
AReasonableMan said...
Now the blog is tedious because only a few right wingers are left and they just sit around and nod their heads in agreement about how Obama and liberals are bad.
There's your oeuvre again. No one else has any interesting insight, only through your intervention can anyone else see the light. And to this end do you have anything interesting to offer as Althouse does? Something not conventional wisdom among every other leftist defending the shield? No, only the most recent Leftist Conventional Wisdom. Boring.
In fact the righties here are far more insightful, varied, and honest.
It has been a completely wasted opportunity made possible by the hypocrisy of people like you.
You keep saying that word. FYI, it doesn't mean "anything I dislike". You're the one who wasted the opportunity to contribute.
At the outset if there had been a more open acceptance of a range of views this blog would now be in much better shape.
There is a great desire for a wide array of honest viewpoints. Unfortunately they don't seem to be available from the left.
The only person on the right who was open minded enough to recognize this was Pastafarian and he seems to have been outvoted.
There's your oeuvre again. Classic.
AReasonableMan said...
A complete lack of self awareness and self control.
Someone get this man a mirror.
And, I am not complaining about civility, like Marshall is, I am complaining about idiots like edutcher who don't have the brains to let a good situation develop into a better one.
By doing what, never objecting to whatever you have to say? B fawning all over liberal positions that he doesn't hold? By not holding yoyu bastards to the same standards you set for everyone else?
And Althouse is quite liberal, and made a point of only going after conservative commenters, despite plenty of poisonous crap coming from the liberal side. But she encouraged that.
As for Meade's alleged conservatism - I doubt it. He says and does whatever will get a rise out of people. I doubt he believes in much of anything except himself.
Marshal said...
There is a great desire for a wide array of honest viewpoints. Unfortunately they don't seem to be available from the left.
This is the problem in a nutshell. So wrapped up in your own self-righteousness you fail to see how closed you are to any other viewpoints.
Icepick said...
As for Meade's alleged conservatism - I doubt it.
This obsession with ideological purity is a big part of the problem. An intolerance even towards similarly minded people. It has more in common with belonging to a religious cult than being a citizen of the country.
AReasonableMan said...
This is the problem in a nutshell. So wrapped up in your own self-righteousness you fail to see how closed you are to any other viewpoints.
It is true I'm closed to the idea that I'm a traitor because I feel free to criticize Benghazi. This isn't because I'm closed to viewpoints generally. It's because I reject insane viewpoints out of hand.
This isn't self-righteousness, it's what reasonable people do. An (admittedly extreme) example of self-righteousness would be to claim that the viewpoints on this blog are tedious without mine.
ARM wrote: The only person on the right who was open minded enough to recognize this was Pastafarian and he seems to have been outvoted.
I think Lem should hire a lefty poster to replace betamax. I am so tired of all my leftwing ideas getting voted down by the board.
Marshal,
This is what you wrote: "There is a great desire for a wide array of honest viewpoints. Unfortunately they don't seem to be available from the left."
It is an indefensible statement, unless you believe all wisdom and insight originates from the right, which would be delusional.
I have been away and just caught up with this thread.
I think you are better than this ARM. Ed is entitled to his opinion and he wants to give somebody a nickname in his post what is the big deal. The attacks on him at TOP by the Nutty Perfessor and her collection of flying monkeys were totally out of bounds. So why not give us your reasoned analysis as to why Obama wants to be Al Gaeda's Air Force.
I would seriously like to know how you can defend this. Thanks.
Oh and by the way....based on edutcher's opinions about "The Searchers" I have consigned him to the drawer with Corky and Trip Palin. So lets just be kind and not stress about it. Okey-Dokey?
Corky and Trip think The Searchers is a good movie? Figures...
AReasonableMan said...
It is an indefensible statement, unless you believe all wisdom and insight originates from the right, which would be delusional.
This is what I mean by dishonesty. The context of that statement was honest viewpoints here, at this site. Leftists are used to playing fast with the facts, you have to when your governing philosophy is rejected by reality. But as you already noted there are only a few leftists here, and none are honest or insightful, which is hardly surprising given that Althouse herself was the only insightful and honest left leaning commenter at her site.
The rest of you seemed to be there only because it upset your sense of propriety that a conversation could occur without being dominated by the leftist conventional wisdom. You've never written anything that fifty columnists from Slate, WAPO, MSNBC, the LAT, KOS, TPM, and the DNC website haven't written a thousand times, which is what makes your assertion that this site blows without your opinions so ridiculous.
They like the horsey's.
Marshall, you proved the statement to be indefensible with your last rant. In your mind, of all the left leaning commenters on Althouse, not one of them had anything useful or interesting to say. That is almost the definition of a closed mind. Why do you bother responding to these idiots then? Just ignore them. Althouse herself is not a leftist. Somewhat like Mickey Kaus she is a self-hating liberal, although like him she seems to mainly hate other liberals. She doesn't count.
With respect to a governing philosophy being rejected by reality, are you familiar with the Great Bush Recession? That's reality baby.
Trooper York said...
I think you are better than this ARM.
No I'm not. Morons piss me off, just like they piss everybody else off.
I can largely ignore special ed but I am pissed off by the fact that the left leaning posters have all deserted this site and I understand why. It is just not worth the effort without some sense of support. Althouse's schizophrenic approach to the world gave the illusion of support, for both sides. This site has become monochromatic and lefties may as well just go and piss people off at RedState, where there is bigger audience.
Marshal said...
You've never written anything that fifty columnists from Slate, WAPO, MSNBC, the LAT, KOS, TPM, and the DNC website haven't written a thousand times, which is what makes your assertion that this site blows without your opinions so ridiculous.
This may be true in the same sense that it is true that I rarely read something here or on Althouse that I haven't already read on Drudge, WSJ, RedState, Daily Caller, etc. or heard previously on Rush. The point, which you clearly fail to grasp, is that it is good to have discussions across the ideological divide. It may not change anybody's mind, and it certainly won't change the world, but it is a means to work out your own way of thinking and expose internal contradictions and some flat out nonsense. You would clearly benefit from posting on Kos or Yglesias some time. I was amazed on Althouse that most people had no idea who Glenn Greenwald was. And this was among people who prided themselves as 'libertarians'. An open mind is a useful tool with which to understand the world, even if you have a core set of principles that are largely fixed.
This may be true in the same sense that it is true that I rarely read something here or on Althouse that I haven't already read on Drudge, WSJ, RedState, Daily Caller, etc. or heard previously on Rush.
Piss off then.
El Pollo Raylan said...
Piss off then.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? It is the conversation that is important. It is not necessary to dominate and 'win' every debate. There is no winning, everything is temporary and conditional. Look at our world now, filled with peaceniks.
AReasonableMan said...
Althouse herself is not a leftist. Somewhat like Mickey Kaus she is a self-hating liberal, although like him she seems to mainly hate other liberals. She doesn't count.
And to think just a few posts ago you ranted about how ideological purity was such a problem. Understanding how your assertions reflect on your own positions has never been your strong point.
In truth Althouse and Kaus are honest liberals, recognizing that even policies they or their party support have negative impacts and discussing those costs openly. This is level of intellectual integrity rare on the left, probably because their dominance of the media and therefore low information voters means integrity comes with an electoral risk.
I give both of them a lot of credit: they're willing to take heat for fighting for a better left: a reasonable, honest left. And they have to accept that far-left lunatics will claim they are self-hating or make similar ridiculous attacks. In the academy and media (and government although not applicable here) this is no small cost.
AReasonableMan said...
The point, which you clearly fail to grasp, is that it is good to have discussions across the ideological divide
It would be if we had honest liberals. But we only have you so it's a waste of time.
Marshal said...
In truth Althouse and Kaus are honest liberals,
I am assuming that you are a big fan of Bruce Bartlett, David Frum and Colin Powell then?
Marshal said...
It would be if we had honest liberals. But we only have you so it's a waste of time.
But according to you there are no honest liberals. Of the hundreds of liberals that posted on Althouse over the years, not an honest man or woman among them.
It is not necessary to dominate and 'win' every debate.
It appears to be necessary for Althouse to win every debate. It appears necessary for Wisconsin liberals (Feingold, Soglin) to "win" every debate; it appears necessary for President Obama to "win" every debate (he only admitted to losing ("taking a shellacking in the 2010 mid-terms" once). From TOP to bottom, this is what confronts conservatives. I think that you conflate a desire not to lose with a desire to win. There is no middle ground with people like Althouse and Obama.
AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
In truth Althouse and Kaus are honest liberals,
I am assuming
If you didn't have assumptions you wouldn't have anything to criticize at all.
AReasonableMan said...
But according to you there are no honest liberals. Of the hundreds of liberals that posted on Althouse over the years, not an honest man or woman among them.
I guess we can put selection bias down as another concept you don't understand. That's getting to be a long list.
P.S. And like it or not, there are better conversations here than over there. People still act out here, and they get deleted.
Marshall all you have left now are ad hominen arguments. We know what that means.
AReasonableMan said...
lefties may as well just go and piss people off at RedState, where there is bigger audience.
At least you're now admitting your goals. A step toward honesty.
AReasonableMan said...
An open mind is a useful tool with which to understand the world
Hysterical coming from one of the most closed minds on the site.
Loved how he ran by the ideological purity hypocrisy also. "Maybe if I talk about something else I won't have to admit it".
So on the honestly front: one step forward and two steps back. Same old story, that's a fact.
AReasonableMan said...
Marshall all you have left now are ad hominen arguments.
I think this was already on the list of concepts you don't understand. Try harder.
El Pollo Raylan said...
It appears to be necessary for Althouse to win every debate.
I don't feel any need to defend Althouse, I had a lot of issues with her views myself. The point is that her comments section boasted a broad range of views, which is what made it interesting. By fixating on ideological purity I think this site has suffered in terms of general interest and with it the loss of readership. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that I am wrong.
Marshall, do you have a point? You don't like liberals. That is an irrational emotion that you are flailing around trying to justify. It doesn't constitute a rational argument.
AReasonableMan said...
Marshall, do you have a point? You don't like liberals. That is an irrational emotion that you are flailing around trying to justify. It doesn't constitute a rational argument.
Many points, no one else seems to have trouble understanding them. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.
And I like liberals just fine. I don't like dishonest leftists.
Marshal said...
And I like liberals just fine. I don't like dishonest leftists.
But according to you not a single person of the left persuasion on Althouse met your personal criteria of being likable or honest. This is not really credible, if you have an open mind towards people that are your ideological opposites. You are very emotionally invested in your dislike of liberals which is why I think you are expressing emotions in search of a rational argument rather than really thinking through what you are saying.
A little history for ARM: this blog was started by Lem with a little help from his friends after Althouse shut down comments. The original mission was to keep open conversation going on every topic. She decided that discussion should end on a variety of topics (do you need chirbit links to recall these?)
It is still next to impossible to have a back and forth discussion with other commenters at her place because of transmission delays between earth and Althouse. Minutes become hours.
What her new system has enabled are comments pretty much directed at her alone, which is what I think she wanted (at least that's what I felt when I continued to comment there for a while). Imagine having to filter every thought here through Lem, Chip, Pasta, Palladian, deborah, synova.
You are lucky to have the sort of discussion and attention you are getting getting here.
AReasonableMan said...
You are very emotionally invested
It's cute watching you try to recover from all the stupid shit you're written here.
Instead of whining that they must have existed why don't you name one?
ARM: If you think that Althouse is now enriched in liberals, perhaps that should be your new home.
P.S. I somehow got along with garage (who was a liberal). Last I checked he wasn't around there much either.
And let's keep in mind it's not me attacking Althouse, but you. You're the one with a problem with honest liberals.
Marshal said...
Instead of whining that they must have existed why don't you name one?
Garage was very nice guy. Most people seemed to agree on that.
El Pollo,
I understand Marshall's viewpoint perfectly well, but I don't understand yours. I made a serious effort to make this site work at the beginning but the facts speak for themselves, as a site where you can have a conversation crossing ideological lines this site has not worked. Now, maybe that was not the goal and I misunderstood this, but that was not my impression at least initially.
Blogger AReasonableMan said.
Garage was very nice guy. Most people seemed to agree on that.
Some people liked him because of his personal interests. But he literally never seriously engaged a conservative idea. His goal was to disrupt serious conversations by distraction. A propagandist.
AReasonableMan said...
El Pollo,
I understand Marshall's viewpoint perfectly well
It's interesting you think so given you haven't described a single facet of it accurately yet.
Marshal said...
It's interesting you think so given you haven't described a single facet of it accurately yet.
Well, knock yourself out. Let's hear it in your own words.
AReasonableMan said...
Let's hear it in your own words.
The part that's relevant here would seem to be that it's impossible to have a serious conversation with someone not interested in a serious conversation.
Marshal said...
The part that's relevant here would seem to be that it's impossible to have a serious conversation with someone not interested in a serious conversation.
I could not agree with this more.
ARM said....
I don't feel any need to defend Althouse, I had a lot of issues with her views myself. The point is that her comments section boasted a broad range of views, which is what made it interesting. By fixating on ideological purity I think this site has suffered in terms of general interest and with it the loss of readership. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that I am wrong.
In fact the Evil Blogger Lady herded out most of her conservatives because her friends in Madison asked her why she was "allowing" bigots to post on her blog. So most if not all of the principled conservatives came here where there is an open forum with free speech paramount. The people remaining are the hardcore leftists like Inga and hdhouse as well as the toady's and sycophants and the occasional hardcore Anti-Semite like Cedarford. If you think that is a conversation worth having than I would like some of what you are smoking.
Oh and by the way...I tried to ask you a reasonable question that you did not address.
Why do you support this action in Syria. Are you in the Eleanor Holmes Norton wing of the kissing Obama ass dept? Or are you such a partisan Democrat that you will be for this action when you were totally against Iraq and are just reversing your position because it is a Democrat in charge?
I think you are a pretty smart guy. You must realize that this is one of the dumbest foreign policy moves in American history.
I really would appreciate your analysis in a substantive manner.
ARM, I think you started out in this thread blaming Ed for single-handedly chasing away libs. Then you seemed to switch your argument to no one wants to discuss serious stuff with the libs. Or something...not dissing you, but just don't want to scroll back up.
The salient fact you are leaving out is that not only are there less libs, there are less cons. This is a function this being a small site. After the initial excitement, things settled down to a daily normal. This place isn't big enough to support Ed's nick names, huge flame wars, etc. People back off getting nasty because the small size of the commentariat shows any non-polite stuff in bold relief. This is a nice little site, and maybe it will grow. But for now, you're going to have to deal with the reality of a small population. People will drop by now and again, and that will be great :)
If you put an email in your profile, you can send me a piece you've written, that may draw out the conversation you'd like to have.
Trooper York said...
In fact the Evil Blogger Lady herded out most of her conservatives because her friends in Madison asked her why she was "allowing" bigots to post on her blog. So most if not all of the principled conservatives came here where there is an open forum with free speech paramount. The people remaining are the hardcore leftists like Inga and hdhouse as well as the toady's and sycophants and the occasional hardcore Anti-Semite like Cedarford. If you think that is a conversation worth having than I would like some of what you are smoking.
I think you misunderstand me re Althouse: the site used to be a very good place to discuss things, before the deluge. It is useless now and I haven't had a positive thing to say about it since then. My broader point, which I have tried to make in a variety of ways is that the positive aspects of the old site could have been reproduced here but some people just cannot accept divergent views as part of life and have acted to squeeze out the broader range of views. I find this personally frustrating because I miss the mix of personalities that the old site brought together. My personal feelings aren't going to change anything however and I am giving up.
But dude lets have the conversation here and now. Less of the process and more of the policy.
Why do you support Obama in Syria?
Or maybe I read you wrong and you don't support it? I could understand that as a consistency that I would admire.
I always respected Robert Cook for his integrity and consistency. We agree on almost nothing but I can still respect his opinion.
That is quite rare on both the right and the left. Most people felt the same way about him. That sort of disproves your point. Just sayn'
By fixating on ideological purity I think this site has suffered in terms of general interest and with it the loss of readership. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that I am wrong.
I think this is wrong. I went to Althouse for politics and contemporary social commentary. I respect the commenters positions, but I find many fewer such topics here.
I always found discussions between the right more interesting. Conversations with leftist ideologues always degenerate into first principles (among the intelligent) or idiocy (such as assertions Republicans are looting the country for the rich). Neither is interesting. There are honest liberals, but they're talking amongst themselves for the same reasons.
And speaking of Althouse, I think the reason her honesty drew so many conservatives was that she debated non-leftist beliefs legitimately. She argued the costs, benefits, rights and wrongs of conservative ideas just as she does the left's beliefs. This was quite different from the overwhelming majority of the left who simply shout bigot as if it's a compelling point. And I think this is what led to much of the overwrought feeling at the end, because those people who so appreciated that fact about her felt a more personal reaction to her shouting bigot at them.
Seconded about RC. Wish he'd come around :)
Maybe if you sent him some of your tasty snack cakes Little Debbie. Just sayn'
I know he love red velvet cake.
He loves everything red.
Okay, if you send some Twinkies.
deborah said...
ARM, I think you started out in this thread blaming Ed for single-handedly chasing away libs.
This is a very reasonable response to a very frustrated one. My posts on ed were done with the understanding that I was burning my bridges. I think you may be underestimating how off-putting it was to have to deal with a few of the old battles on this site but I do understand that there was a broad decline in numbers. It is unfortunate. I think the moderators made a mistake by not quickly embracing a range of views in the masthead at the outset. It is difficult to reverse things now. But, maybe you are right and things would have played out similarly whatever strategy was taken.
If you put an email in your profile, you can send me a piece you've written, that may draw out the conversation you'd like to have.
I have never blogged and have not really looked to start. I will think about this. Trooper brings up a good point on which I am quite conflicted but not sure I have the skills to express. Thanks anyway. Not playing hard to get. I will get back to you.
Can be about any topic. Maybe just wait for the spirit to strike.
I would be happy to hear what you have to say ARM. It doesn't even have to be political. Pick any topic that interest you and give us the liberal view.
Suggested topics: A-Rod and blowing off his suspension, Obama wanting to blow off the Olympics because of the Russians stance on gays or Aaron Rodgers blowing Ryan Braun.
@TY: Aaron Rodgers is gay?
BTW, I have to ask: Are Eli and Chelsea related somehow?
I don't see why this has to be a political/ideological issue at all, and seriously lament the fact that here, at least, it has to be one.
The issue of dealing with the breach of an 88-year old chemical weapons convention is a serious and complicated one. Spoiler alert: I was just out of the country and heard David Cameron (anyone here heard of him?) arguing an even more strident case for action than Obama did. The British public and politicians were way against any action but at least their splits were not political.
Obama did not make this event occur. He is getting a bit blustery, but that's due to the fact that no one here even thinks about the actual forensic case for anything. Who ordered the attack? Was it an element in the regime unrelated and disloyal to Assad, in order to provoke retaliation against his regime intentionally? No one here even bothers to look at those crucial questions, so of course we have to now sit back and wade through the muck of responses over how forcefully The American Empire will respond, and with the assumption that said response should somehow influence the tug-of-war in a political hellhole where every faction is equally horrible.
Does that justify allowing the attacks to stand? Of course not. But then, why should that be the concern of anyone here when the difficult position of any American president faced with that just so happens to occur on the watch of someone they hate, right? It surely can't be patriotic to take post-WWI conventions seriously when you can make the challenge they present political.
For what it's worth, I don't think Althousie understood herself (or a lot of other things) enough for a political/ideological viewpoint to mean much to her. I think on some things she might have came across as either left or right, but her big deal was basically being a populist sycophant, not a bad place in which for a narcissist like her to be. Actual philosophies were very secondary to any of that, for her at least.
And in any event, why should the rest of us (non-narcissits) even bother to so strongly uphold ideological affiliations, regardless? As I just commented, listening to David Cameron and his opposition Labour Party convinced me just how opportunistic almost all of politics is and can be. Ideology is way over-rated. Over there the Syria debate was 180-degrees inverted from what it is here. The fact is we have a complicated issue to either deal with or ignore and we do no one any favors by setting aside the objective arguments in favor of farcical debates over the optics of action (as everyone here, from Stewart to the Iraq chickenhawks to Obama, is doing). At least in other quarters, the argument over the consequences of appearing to lead is considered separately from the much more serious issues of who did what and why what should be done about it.
Rits, I find the whole chemical weapons approach a non-starter. 100,000 people killed in Syria, and we're going to take action on the fig leaf of 1000 dying by gas? When we can't know if it was a false flag op by the rebels, or even another nation, including us.
It comes down to what the desired outcome is if we destroy Assad's air force, runways, installations, etc., versus what will actually happen
(Unfortunately?) the chemical weapons thing is the only real starter. The convention against it is 88 years old, dating back to an interest in ending the horrors of WWI - which killed many more people, much more quickly than Assad has. There are some directives in international law that say you can't kill your own people, democide is bad, yada yada yada, but they are not as definitive, binding or strong. Having been abroad in another recent and successful empire, it's interesting to see how things work differently. Americans, perhaps because they are a current empire, and a very "can-do" one at that, mistake their power to act (esp. when removed from budgeting) and moral impulse to act with very strong historical and legal precedents for acting.
Apart from that, you are very right to engage both forensic and operational concerns. We don't know who did it, and the debate abroad on determining that was much better than here. There are very good reasons to think Assad didn't, but that perhaps someone in his regime, who wants to ignite a conflagration against him, did. And yes, the whole debate everywhere devolves into what good military action will do. Just because there should be a sanction against the act, does not mean that we would or should in any way want to intercede in such a way as to affect the outcome of that civil war on behalf of any of the belligerents. None of them deserve to be in charge of anything, morally speaking - and to act in the clear political or military benefit/advantage of any one of them would be abhorrent to our interests.
But these are the complexities that matter, and that unfortunately no one voices as articulately as they should - unless all the doubt that's rightfully raised in places like this one is a reflection of that.
"None of them deserve to be in charge of anything, morally speaking - and to act in the clear political or military benefit/advantage of any one of them would be abhorrent to our interests."
Iran and Russia are aiding the Assad side. Do you think this changes the equation in any way?
In general, I think the Shia are more reasoned than the Sunni. Yet we back the Sunni because we have political ties with SA, Qatar, and Israel (simplified version).
What I think is going down is Putin and Obama are having a gentleman's pissing contest, and neither will get crazy, but each will tend to manage their own side (sect) fairly well.
Iran and Russia are aiding the Assad side. Do you think this changes the equation in any way?
Of course. It always does. They are most unhelpful and I wish they could just go away. But part of their moral failing is to always look at things politically. We should too, but only as one concern out of a number of concerns.
In general, I think the Shia are more reasoned than the Sunni. Yet we back the Sunni because we have political ties with SA, Qatar, and Israel (simplified version).
The Shia are more used to being a cautious minority in the region, and their history of governing with that in mind shows. I'd say it's more fear (if mixed with a nervous pride in Iran) than reason.
But this observation can be taken too far. Obviously Iran is a pretty unhelpful country - to understate things in the extreme. I think populations that have a history of not leading can be bad at it, as even Iran's ayatollahs show even more than 30 years after coming to power.
Assad's Shia-allied Allawis have a longer and more stable history of leading Syria - at least internally, but there are limits to everything, esp. given the amount of control that takes. They're a minority supporting a dictatorship that brought in Iranian-backed Hizbollah for moral/tribal support, and that's not stabilizing either.
What I think is going down is Putin and Obama are having a gentleman's pissing contest, and neither will get crazy, but each will tend to manage their own side (sect) fairly well.
I believe (or at least hope) that Obama knows Putin is a worthless thug (if one we can usually ignore), and is acting on the geopolitical calculation that the French (remember them? They've got a Security Council vote/veto too. ;-)) will provide the push that we ironically expect them to back down from. The stereotype here is that they're cowards, but they have longstanding ties to (which in their mind, equals interests) in that region. They've got their own imperialist memories, too.
I meant to say "nostalgia" instead of "memories".
"But part of their moral failing is to always look at things politically."
They both have problems with Sunni surrounding populations. E.G., Afghanistan to the east of Iran. We have launched CIA ops to cause Afghans to enter Iran and cause internal tensions. This after Iran agreed to recover any of our downed pilots in their territory at the beginning of the Afghan War.
re French vote, it only takes one veto, and between China and Russia, there are two.
We need Russia's cooperation to leave Afghanistan using a (partially) northern rail route. Whether we do a token bombing of Syria probably doesn't matter much in the long run.
Fun scenario: before the end of Obama's term, Putin 'brings' Obama and Iran to the table. Quid pro quo for Putin 'giving in' on Syrian action.
Great chat! You have the last word, if you wish :)
Thanks Deb ;-). I'm enjoying this, too. No need to see something as a "last word" when they're pretty far from antagonistic, but I'm glad we can get at least closer to the bottom of such a bottomless pit of pitifulness as the issue of Syria.
Re, your other points, I agree with a lot of them. Predictable vetoes prevent SC action so I'm not sure what role taking this to the UN provides other than to press the issue.
I think Russia's problem is forever looking at itself as in the geographic middle of everything: Sitting between Europe, a crumbled caliphate, China. If that weren't bad enough, the only escape from any of that is Siberia! They sure seem to love playing the role of the perpetual spoiler.
I like your fun scenario but unfortunately nations tend to bargain for as much power as they can and I'm not sure what that raging pimple Putin feels he would get out of such a deal - unless it somehow appeals once again to that Russian ideal of spoiler or a regional balancing act. If it's pulled off though and Obama could get something out of a negotiation with Iran then I guess it would vindicate his dealings somewhat, but I'm starting from a pessimistic starting point on that.
Let's hope that Obama never sits down at the negotiating table with Putin. Putin has zero respect for Obama. He sees him as the kid he used to take his lunch money and give him a wedgie.
Obama would probably sell Alaska back to Russia and say he did it to get rid of Sarah Palin. The Dems would come in their pants.
Let's hope that Obama never sits down at the negotiating table with Putin. Putin has zero respect for Obama. He sees him as the kid he used to take his lunch money and give him a wedgie.
Obama would probably sell Alaska back to Russia and say he did it to get rid of Sarah Palin. The Dems would come in their pants.
Man, Putin has zero respect for anybody. He's a thug, remember.
Putin (rhymes with Rasputin)
~ William Safire
But nobody has any respect for Obama. He is an international joke.
This Syrian mess is only turning him into what he has always been...a rodeo clown.
Post a Comment