#1) The movement is being co-opted by Republicans.
#2) Your analysis of their anti-Democrat tone is a little off, although not by much, I'll grant you.
On a separate note, I think McChrystal is somewhat like Admiral Thomas Connolly. He sacrificed his career to speak truth to power. You and others may have a problem with how he did it, but that fact remains that the administration was doing a poor job with Afghanistan, effectively sabotaging their own plan much like Vietnam. Silence doesn't fix anything. Frankly, if the administration won't take proper counsel in private when they ought to, they deserve the egg on their face when it blows up.
1) monitor product safety, especially food and drugs, 2) protect the environment, and 3) fund scientific research for which there is no immediate commercial application.
We would have lots of money to do that if we (and by "we", I don't actually mean "you and I", I mean the Republicrats) weren't spending it foolishly elsewhere. But look at where we are now. We are spending so much so-called stimulus money that even the Europeans are looking at us and saying "Uh, no thanks, we'd rather cut back our spending than try to keep up with you". And surprise, surprise, the Democrats are getting ready to raise taxes again. Not just on those rich folks they demonized during the elections either; they are coming after your paycheck and mine.
#4) prosecute businesses that engage in anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
Hell yeah. I don't like big government interfering in business, but a healthy free-market system requires a free market, which a monopoly certainly isn't. If there is need for a limited government role there, fine.
He knew single-payer was a non-starter to begin with, and compromised to get something done rather than nothing. After all, wasn't one of Ted Kennedy's favorite sayings "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?
In those terms, I suppose that his results are mostly centrist, in that they represent a compromise between the right-wing big spenders the left-wing big spenders. However, I'd say that true conservatives - small accountable government, low taxes, strong individual rights - would say that the whole thing stinks.
Conservatives love to whine that they are not being respected, all the while disrespecting their opponents.
You could insert virtually any group (including "liberals") in place of "conservatives" in that sentence and still have a valid point.
Furthermore, the truth is that there are people who are in favor of lower taxes, smaller government, and strong individual rights who had nothing to do with the idiots who coined the term "teabagging" in its current political meaning, and certainly are alarmed at the current Republican attempts to co-opt their movement.
To paraphrase, namecalling is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I'd say he has adopted a his current positions on those subjects out of pragmatism. I don't think his position in Iraq is centrist; it is actually the path that GWB laid out with the Iraqi government before Obama was elected. Obama is sticking with it because it works better than anything else he can think of. He tried a few things with the Gitmo detainees before falling back - uncomfortably - to GWB policies. His attempts to engage with Iran have proven his measure of their leadership and concept of the problem there woefully wrong.
I will say that his attempts to impose UN sanctions on Iran have probably been more successful that GWB would have been, simply because other nations are more eager to work with Obama. But nothing he has done has slowed the bombastic rhetoric from Tehran, delayed their nuclear weapons program, or cut their support of terrorists.
He is still very liberal at heart, and I'm sure that there are other left-wing initiatives he has that he intends to push as his term moves forward.
Like I said, it has no place in polite conversation, regardless of who uses it. Plus, many who are being tarred with this brush had no part in its origins.
And none of that changes my original point, which was that it is used as a pejorative term to attack people rather than engage in debate, and therefore is usually used by people whose ability to engage in an interesting discussion is less developed than their desire to mock those who think differently.
If I got to another country as an 'Agent of America' - aka one of its citizens
Citizen != "Agent of country X". We know we have Russian intelligence agents here in the US... they work at their embassy and consulate locations, and they register with us.
wouldn't I just get deported back to the US?
If you were suspected/arrested/tried/convicted of spying on a foreign country, you might well be imprisoned.
Seems to me deportation and no-fly listing would be sufficient.
More likely it seems like they are US Citizens who have nothing to do with Russia, and they did/saw/know something the government no longer wants floating out there, so they are being taken prisoner as 'spies' to make sure they STFU.
I think your tinfoil hat is showing. It remains to be seen what happens at trial, but apparently they were engaging in encrypted communication with their handlers (which were decoded), and they were filmed making contact and exchanging items with their handlers.
Using a derogatory term to refer to someone else is still a form of ad hominem attack, and therefore tacky. Like Eddie Pinder said about the word "nigger": "it has no place is polite conversation".
At the end of the day, the word "teabagger" comes to represent the rancor and resentment that liberals feel against their opponents. One need look no further than the fact that the term has been popularized by left-leaning media outlets (I'm looking at you, Olberman) to realize that its original intent has been perverted (please excuse the intentional pun).
Personally, I thought it was a hell of a lot better when they were just called "Libertarians".
use the proceeds from the sale and bonuses to pay off any 401(k) retirement plans invested in the company. Let the other shareholders eat the loss as a warning to perform better due diligence and not invest in criminal organizations
So...
Financial institutions who manage 401(k) plans are exempt from having to do due diligence?
But on the other hand, average Joe who buys a few shares on Etrade is required (prior to purchase) to ferret out any potential skulduggery (even if its evidence is hidden in internal company documents), lest he unwittingly invest in a "criminal organization"?
I'm curious. How many publically traded corporations do you personally know for certain are not involved in some kind of cover-up?
Those in the Tea Party never chose the name "teabagger". It was an ad-hominem smear by their opponents. Sort of like if Tea Party members called Democrats jackasses. (Hey, not their fault the Dems have a donkey for a symbol...)
The Tea Party is made up of lots of people who aren't well represented by the platforms of the two major parties. As such, it has become a place for people to gravitate to if they disagree with the establishment, which means that you have Intelligent Design wackos and Obama birth truthers lumped in with average joes who want good things like smaller government and lower taxes. "Teabagger" is a convenient derogatory term that lets the Tea Party's opponents pretend that they have nothing worth listening to.
If this was the National Review Online, or Free Republic, or what have you, there would be a huge push to cover this up
So let me get your argument straight: You are using your own personal bias and speculation to invent a fictional situation; and then in that hypothetical, fictional situation, the news outlets that you disagree with would do something bad? And that excuses any culpability that DKos might have? Wow. That's all the proof I need... (rolls eyes)
Genius. There can be no defense against that, since you are making it up as you go.
Obama is certainly a liberal. He's simply not doing all the things the liberals who supported and elected him want. As to why, my guesses boil down to:
He got into the Oval office and realized that things aren't as simple as he previously thought. A lot of his foreign policy falls into this one. Eg, what to do with Gitmo detainees, or how to pull out of a war zone without making things worse. How to "engage" with ass-backwards countries like Iran.
He hasn't gotten around to it yet. Spending enormous amounts of political capital passing a kludged-together, loophole-filled healthcare bill has drained his ability to push other agenda items he wants. The situation in the Gulf of Mexico isn't helping either.
He liked how some things sounded during the election, but has since changed his mind.
He's a politician; of course he said what people wanted to hear in order to get elected.
Slashdot Mirror
I never thought it would be so easy to prove all mankind scoundrels, but hey, when you're right you're right.
#1) The movement is being co-opted by Republicans.
#2) Your analysis of their anti-Democrat tone is a little off, although not by much, I'll grant you.
On a separate note, I think McChrystal is somewhat like Admiral Thomas Connolly. He sacrificed his career to speak truth to power. You and others may have a problem with how he did it, but that fact remains that the administration was doing a poor job with Afghanistan, effectively sabotaging their own plan much like Vietnam. Silence doesn't fix anything. Frankly, if the administration won't take proper counsel in private when they ought to, they deserve the egg on their face when it blows up.
1) monitor product safety, especially food and drugs, 2) protect the environment, and 3) fund scientific research for which there is no immediate commercial application.
We would have lots of money to do that if we (and by "we", I don't actually mean "you and I", I mean the Republicrats) weren't spending it foolishly elsewhere. But look at where we are now. We are spending so much so-called stimulus money that even the Europeans are looking at us and saying "Uh, no thanks, we'd rather cut back our spending than try to keep up with you". And surprise, surprise, the Democrats are getting ready to raise taxes again. Not just on those rich folks they demonized during the elections either; they are coming after your paycheck and mine.
#4) prosecute businesses that engage in anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
Hell yeah. I don't like big government interfering in business, but a healthy free-market system requires a free market, which a monopoly certainly isn't. If there is need for a limited government role there, fine.
Sadly, yeah, you're pretty much right on that one.
did I said you said that? I just said it's an ad-hominem.
Well, that certainly appeared to be the implication. My apologies if I misunderstood.
Also, pointing out his rhetorical error is not an ad-hominem argument. I'd be happy to debate the issue on its merits, if he would stick to them.
He knew single-payer was a non-starter to begin with, and compromised to get something done rather than nothing. After all, wasn't one of Ted Kennedy's favorite sayings "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?
In those terms, I suppose that his results are mostly centrist, in that they represent a compromise between the right-wing big spenders the left-wing big spenders. However, I'd say that true conservatives - small accountable government, low taxes, strong individual rights - would say that the whole thing stinks.
Conservatives love to whine that they are not being respected, all the while disrespecting their opponents.
You could insert virtually any group (including "liberals") in place of "conservatives" in that sentence and still have a valid point.
Furthermore, the truth is that there are people who are in favor of lower taxes, smaller government, and strong individual rights who had nothing to do with the idiots who coined the term "teabagging" in its current political meaning, and certainly are alarmed at the current Republican attempts to co-opt their movement.
To paraphrase, namecalling is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Where the government can have cameras, but you can't.
I think I've seen that movie.
I'd say he has adopted a his current positions on those subjects out of pragmatism. I don't think his position in Iraq is centrist; it is actually the path that GWB laid out with the Iraqi government before Obama was elected. Obama is sticking with it because it works better than anything else he can think of. He tried a few things with the Gitmo detainees before falling back - uncomfortably - to GWB policies. His attempts to engage with Iran have proven his measure of their leadership and concept of the problem there woefully wrong.
I will say that his attempts to impose UN sanctions on Iran have probably been more successful that GWB would have been, simply because other nations are more eager to work with Obama. But nothing he has done has slowed the bombastic rhetoric from Tehran, delayed their nuclear weapons program, or cut their support of terrorists.
He is still very liberal at heart, and I'm sure that there are other left-wing initiatives he has that he intends to push as his term moves forward.
"what you said is false because you said teabaggers"
That's not what I said, is it? If you are going to put words in my mouth, try not to put quotes around them.
What I actually said was:
To an educated mind, snarky ad-hominem attacks do more to discredit you than your opponent.
The only thing I did was point out his rhetorical fallacy, and indicate that through it he was damaging himself more than his opponent.
When they started gaining traction, the Republicans, fresh off their '08 defeats, tried co-opting the movement.
What part of lower taxes and smaller government bothers you?
Meh ... they just bought an existing company.
Like I said, it has no place in polite conversation, regardless of who uses it. Plus, many who are being tarred with this brush had no part in its origins.
And none of that changes my original point, which was that it is used as a pejorative term to attack people rather than engage in debate, and therefore is usually used by people whose ability to engage in an interesting discussion is less developed than their desire to mock those who think differently.
If I got to another country as an 'Agent of America' - aka one of its citizens
Citizen != "Agent of country X". We know we have Russian intelligence agents here in the US ... they work at their embassy and consulate locations, and they register with us.
wouldn't I just get deported back to the US?
If you were suspected/arrested/tried/convicted of spying on a foreign country, you might well be imprisoned.
Seems to me deportation and no-fly listing would be sufficient.
More likely it seems like they are US Citizens who have nothing to do with Russia, and they did/saw/know something the government no longer wants floating out there, so they are being taken prisoner as 'spies' to make sure they STFU.
I think your tinfoil hat is showing. It remains to be seen what happens at trial, but apparently they were engaging in encrypted communication with their handlers (which were decoded), and they were filmed making contact and exchanging items with their handlers.
Using a derogatory term to refer to someone else is still a form of ad hominem attack, and therefore tacky. Like Eddie Pinder said about the word "nigger": "it has no place is polite conversation".
At the end of the day, the word "teabagger" comes to represent the rancor and resentment that liberals feel against their opponents. One need look no further than the fact that the term has been popularized by left-leaning media outlets (I'm looking at you, Olberman) to realize that its original intent has been perverted (please excuse the intentional pun).
Personally, I thought it was a hell of a lot better when they were just called "Libertarians".
use the proceeds from the sale and bonuses to pay off any 401(k) retirement plans invested in the company. Let the other shareholders eat the loss as a warning to perform better due diligence and not invest in criminal organizations
So ...
I'm curious. How many publically traded corporations do you personally know for certain are not involved in some kind of cover-up?
Those in the Tea Party never chose the name "teabagger". It was an ad-hominem smear by their opponents. Sort of like if Tea Party members called Democrats jackasses. (Hey, not their fault the Dems have a donkey for a symbol ...)
The Tea Party is made up of lots of people who aren't well represented by the platforms of the two major parties. As such, it has become a place for people to gravitate to if they disagree with the establishment, which means that you have Intelligent Design wackos and Obama birth truthers lumped in with average joes who want good things like smaller government and lower taxes. "Teabagger" is a convenient derogatory term that lets the Tea Party's opponents pretend that they have nothing worth listening to.
The snarky ad hominem bit was "teabagger". And don't pretend you didn't mean it that way.
If this was the National Review Online, or Free Republic, or what have you, there would be a huge push to cover this up
So let me get your argument straight: You are using your own personal bias and speculation to invent a fictional situation; and then in that hypothetical, fictional situation, the news outlets that you disagree with would do something bad? And that excuses any culpability that DKos might have? Wow. That's all the proof I need ... (rolls eyes)
Genius. There can be no defense against that, since you are making it up as you go.
To an educated mind, snarky ad-hominem attacks do more to discredit you than your opponent.
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
...
No, seriously
1400 megapixel cameras will be standard in cell phones within 5 years. And their pictures will still look shitty and blurry.
... 1400 megapixel pron jokes in 3 ... 2 .. 1 ... )
(cue the mmm