Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOuthouse is so pathetic. She's worked herself into an ugly anti-Obama froth......and the world kicks her in the face. Over and over.What a reality check!
Three seconds? I want more!
I have the feeling that this is the weekend Ann will seriously consider lurching back to the center.After all, many more liberal women have tits that she can criticize.
“You see things like Obama winning the Nobel Prize; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’". Or something like that. Whatever.Awards meant to settle scores & to exclude those for whom we suffer a derangement syndrome.
Oh ethan,still using yesterday's talking points from Rachel Maddow? What's wrong, your poster of Pelosi come down?You make us all laugh. Be sure and come back after you and your left wing lemmings hit puberty.
does anyone doubt that if the "ethans" of the world had the weapons and opportunity they would shoot all of us in the head?will it come to that i wonder? i no longer see any remedy for the rift that has developed.
I just need a definition of Bow Down. Does it require a bow from the waist to lower your head beneath his like the bow that B. Hussein Obama did for King Faisal? Or does it require a complete prostration of the body and head as the muslims must do down at the mosque? The whole Bloggingheads was as witty as I've ever seen one. So your quip about bowing to Our King will be overlooked. But let's all try not to do it again. Incidentally, the bow expressing the attitude of the body and its head IS what the word worship refers to.
ethan, go back to your dream world where words solve problems, and evil dictators are just misunderstood altruists.
Watching Outhouse frantically post and post and post today was so...satisfying. It's delightful. I'm filled with something like...Glee.I truly love this little backwater of lunatic racism and hatred of America.You're all so great!Keep it up!(Tell me exactly...how angry are you?)
Yes, I do doubt the Ethans of the world would shoot us in the head, that's outrageous. But I have no doubt they'd nick my welcome mat and consider it not a crime.
Rabies cafe...You can froth here.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASeriously, stop. Yer killin' me.
Angry? I think great hilarity has ensued.
Chip... I saw a link (heck, was it here?) to a study that showed that people who made "green" purchases were more dishonest... perhaps because they felt they'd purchased their virtue so other stuff didn't count.Entirely likely that ethan would nick your welcome mat and consider it not a crime because ethan has the right and moral ideas... certainly those ideas justify jubilation at the mind-picture of violence against someone he doesn't like... a welcome mat is small change.
OH MANI JUST SAW THAT YOU ALL ARE NOW IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TALIBANThis is too rich.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ethan...You are trying to get the Professor to delete you to orove a point? Right? No answer will be a confirmation. Why not say something about todays subject? We will listen and argue your favorite points with you.that is why free speech is done here. Try it, you might like it.
The Nobel cartel's credibility had already been careening down Cynical Street but it just took a sharp left on WTF Avenue.Cafe Press is full of congratulatory merchandise from Obama's supporters. I am officially starting Proud Non-Recipient counter-protest.wv: conester
Ethan, are you the new Jeremy?We are LAUGHING at this prize. We're not in a frenzy, unless you consider the tears rolling down our cheeks as a proof of being anti-anything.It's FUNNY that this prize has devolved on the Boy President.
She's worked herself into an ugly anti-Obama froth...Yes, you can see that from her expression! LOL!Drinking the m-o-o-o-nbat kool-aid!
I think the proper position is "to bend over" rather than "bow down" when in the Obama presence.
Grab the reins, althousiacs!If you do nothing but talk about tbis all day, that belies your claim that the Nobel prize is worthless.It's either worth talking about, or it isn't.You can't keep saying "The prize has been meaningless ever since X got one." Because then you have to explain why you are unable to talk about anything else.Certainly something else must ahve happened today that is more worthy of the attention of such thoughtful, moral, non-idiotic people such as the Althouse commentariat, right?Then go talk about that. . .
Can any of the Obama defenders (ethan, perhaps?) point out anything in particular that Obama did before February 1st, 2009 that qualifies him for the prize?The only thing of any note that I can remember him doing in that time period is a missile strike on Pakistan that killed some innocent civilians.But shouldn't winning the Nobel Peace Prize require doing more than just bombing a sovereign, peaceful nation and murdering its men, women, and children?
Antipathy cafe...Share your feelings of helplessness, rage and impotence.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
will it come to that i wonder? i no longer see any remedy for the rift that has developed.Yes.
Rosin:"[The Nobel Prize] gives him this, like, statesman status which, you know, is helpful in the Middle East."Gaaaaaaah!
She looks pretty happy. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this to be amusing, and can still have a good day.I know Obama's 'peace' really means tremendous suffering for millions of good people, but anger is only so productive. Ethan and others can stay angry. Althouse... and lot of other people, are choosing to laugh.President Obama: winner of the Gold Medal of Peace at the Chicago 2016 games!
What can one say, women are profoundly unserious creatures.
AC245,"But shouldn't winning the Nobel Peace Prize require doing more than just bombing a sovereign, peaceful nation and murdering its men, women, and children?"Well, given that Rush and Ann both think that GWB deserves a peace prize, I can only take it that you mean the goal should be bombing TWO "peaceful, sovereign nations."That is what you meant, right doofus?
You can't keep saying "The prize has been meaningless ever since X got one." Because then you have to explain why you are unable to talk about anything else.Oh no, it's the least thing they could have done for Our President, the Rt. Hon. Abraham Delano Fitzgerald Mahatma Obama. I can't wait until the United Nations deifies him so that we can address Him as The Divine Obama.
Well, no, phosphorius, I meant what I asked:Can any of the Obama defenders point out anything in particular that Obama did before February 1st, 2009 that qualifies him for the prize?I pointed out that the only thing I remembered him doing was raining murderous hellfire down upon some poor Pakistani citizens. Do you remember anything he did that would qualify him for the prize he won?
AC245,Why yes, I do remember something he did that merits a peace prize.He won an American presidential election without promising to "double Guantanamo", or otherwise whip up the blood-thirsty and war-mongering right.For the first time this century, we had a president whose primary selling point was NOT his willingness to crush a child's testicles.He showed that an anti-war position could be a winning political strategy.That certainly deserves a tip of the hat, no?
LOL at those defending this stupid prize.GHANDI was nominated five times. He never won.Obama wins for less than two weeks of his completely stalled presidency, and the real giants of the human race are ignored.It's only a problem if you value this stupid trifle of political bias. It's just another example of how Europe loves their weenies and hates real heros.
He won an award for winning an election?So where are GW Bush's and WJ Clinton's TWO Nobel Peace Prizes?
Slow Joe,"I know Obama's 'peace' really means tremendous suffering for millions of good people"Unlike Bush's wars, which only meant suffering for bad people. . .What good aim ol' W had! Only bad people ever got killed by his policies.
Slow Joe,"Ethan and others can stay angry. Althouse... and lot of other people, are choosing to laugh."Yeah. . . but she's been laughing all day. And not talking about anything else. And she's still laughing.And laughing.It ain't healthy, I tells ya. . .
Slow Joe said..."LOL at those defending this stupid prize.GHANDI was nominated five times. He never won."WTF? Conservatives are now fans of Ghandi?When the hell did that happen?
"Can any of the Obama defenders (ethan, perhaps?) point out anything in particular that Obama did before February 1st, 2009 that qualifies him for the prize?"Well lets see...So far from Jeremy we have that Obama gave us peace in our hearts.From Phos we've got that Obama won an election by saying nice and peaceful things.There are several votes for "not Bush".What else, specifically, has Obama done? (Other than been screwed by some Norwegians.)
And for the record, Althousiasts, the liberal blogosphere seems to agree that Obama doesn't deserve this prize either.But their criticisms are not quite as spittle-flecked as yours.Read Glen Greenwald for a shot of sanity.And then go back to chewing through your lower lips.
Boo.. Boo.. BooSo bow down to him if you want, vow down to him, vow down the king of slime, of refuse.
"WTF? Conservatives are now fans of Ghandi?When the hell did that happen?"When weren't they? I certainly never heard a single bad thing about Ghandi until the last couple of years... the charge that he had luck in choosing enemies who would be horrified by the deaths of peaceful people doesn't say anything against *him* so much as for those trying to argue that the same methods will work for people who see killing innocents as a feature.
WTF? Conservatives are now fans of GhandiAnd the French, Russia, the Dalai Lama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton!
In related news, Pres. Obama has asked that the Nobel prize cash award be paid in Chinese yuan.(That's 元9,557,798 CNY)He will also accept gold bullion.
"does anyone doubt that if the "ethans" of the world had the weapons and opportunity they would shoot all of us in the head?"Well, yeah, but the vast majority of these butterfingered girls' blouse lefties wouldn't even know which way to point the things much less how to squeeze the triggers, so I'm not too concerned yet."will it come to that i wonder? i no longer see any remedy for the rift that has developed."I don't really see any remedy, either, only deeper and deeper hysteria on their part any time a conservative (or even just a Republican) wins another election.It's particularly discouraging that they simply cannot seem to brook any sort of non-Leftist sentiment to any degree. Here we have a blog run by a woman who's more or less an Obama-voting liberal -- a law professor from Communist Madison, no less, and the trolls react to her as if she's Michael Savage just because she's not 100% in-the-tank for Barack Obama.It's weird.
Oh, so THAT's why we bombed the moon this morning...to get the water to mix up the moonbat kool-aid.WV raintraI sheet you not!
Re post title:You better smile when you say that.WV curstmedno kidding, really!!!
does anyone doubt that if the "ethans" of the world had the weapons and opportunity they would shoot all of us in the head?Well, yes, I doubt that. What a crazy fucking thing to say.
Angry? I think great hilarity has ensued."That's true. When I heard the news this morning I burst out laughing, as did the person who told me. It's pretty absurd and everyone, except the shills, knows it.The most frothing I see is coming from the lefties who don't like that people dare to laugh at the "President of the World!"
This is a slap in the face to people who played the lottery for years and years and never won.Its really not fair.dam thing was fixed.(lol)
Jesus, DBQ. Are you serious?
Kensington,"Well, yeah, but the vast majority of these butterfingered girls' blouse lefties wouldn't even know which way to point the things much less how to squeeze the triggers, so I'm not too concerned yet."This is my favorite bit of douchebag-conservative sleight of hand.On the one hand, "libs" are a bunch of effeminate poofters who would squeal with fear at the mere sight of a gun.On the other hand, all you macho, gun-toting, tea-bagging conservatives who aren't afarid to kill and die for the grand old US of A. . . why you would NEVER harm so much as a hair on Obama's head, and it's liberal slander to even suggest such a thing. Of course he's a socialist, baby killing tyrant who is actively seeking to destroy this country, and og course the second ammendment was intended to address exactly this situation, but no. . . you guys are a bunch of pussycats, who would NEVER actually do anything violent.Any violence will come from the left. . . those poodle walking blouse wearers who can't even hold a gun. . . Keep talking, dipshit. You might actually convince yourself.
Synova,Forgive me, I assumed that conservative opinion regarding Gandhi followed Winston Churchill, who saw him as a rabble rousing opportunist.That's how the right usually sees pacifists, no?
I said:"It's pretty absurd and everyone, except the shills, knows it."I take that back. The shills probably also know it is absurd.
phophor, it would help if you would type in bold caps at the beginning of every one of your postsSTRAWMAN ALERT!
So sad, phosphorius and Matt and Ethan have nothing of substance to do in their lives except berate those they want to always disagree with. Their idol Obama must be defended.How pathetic. What meaningless lives they live. Must be between circle jerks.
As to Althouse being an "Obama voting Liberal". . . It's funny, but whenever I have engaged a conservative, either online or in person, over the past five or six years (since before the 2004 election anyway), it is not long before they say something like "I'm not really a conservative. I'm more of a libertarian, independent, free-thinkiong. . ." whatever.Very few people these days are willing to self-identify as conservatives, period.Ann's Obama vote is an example of this: conservatives got tired of defending Bush, who was after all indefensible, and were perfectly happy to see a democrat win the election. It took the heat off them.Conservatives have decided already that Obama is the Worst President Ever, MUCH worse than Bush (who Althouse misses!) This hardly strikes me as an "independent" opinion; it sure seems like her vote provided just enough cover for her to say "I voted for him, and even I am disappointed in him!"In short, it's bullshit.Pretty much all the criticism of Obama from the right is payback for Bush. Which is a shame, because of you look at what the left is saying, there are real criticisms to be made of the Obama administration. But it's drowned out by all the conservative noise.
all you macho, gun-toting, tea-bagging conservatives What an asshole - can't figure out that such people carrying guns into meetings were Democrats and LaRouche supporters and people with warrants.Phos's life is so barren and his inability to construct a logical connection so tenous it actually makes normal people feel sorry for him.Phosphorius, we feel sorry for you.
Chase,"So sad, phosphorius and Matt and Ethan have nothing of substance to do in their lives except berate those they want to always disagree with. Their idol Obama must be defended."If you want a sober analysis of this prize, and what it means and whetehr it's deserved, go read Glenn Greenwald, or Digby, or Atrios. . . or any liberal blogger. Go see what Michael Moore had to say about it at Huffington Post.But if you want to sing another round of "Obama, the Worst President Ever", then stick around here, because that's all you get.
when obama is finished with us, im sure more than a few "liberals" will be embarrassed to actually admit to being liberals as well.wv: emonate. the howls of rage and sadness emonate from floppy haired liberals.
It is not at all true that leftists and liberals fear guns. The left-most liberal-est person I know, who is still quite even-tempered and rational but for some odd reason keeps a Kerry and Edwards sign on his property, is the most avid hunter that I know. Sort of the opposite of Ted Nugent. Plus he bought one of my frescos, just to show ya how clear-headed he is.
daubiere,"when obama is finished with us, im sure more than a few "liberals" will be embarrassed to actually admit to being liberals as well."Fine. But I insist that we wait until he does something egregiously wrong.Conservatives ahve decided that right now he is a failure as a president.It's such transparent payback for all the mean things said about your hero Bush.
phos - I will do this once - in case you have an adult around to read it and explain it to you.Once, because if you can't get it this time - and you may have washed too many times in the blatant and basic evilness of left wing thought that the brain damage is irrevocable - the you won't be able to ever get it. Still, here goes:Very few people these days are willing to self-identify as conservatives, period.Boy, are you an ignorant idiot.Pretty much all the criticism of Obama from the right is payback for Bush.That qualifies as a statement of worship for Obama/ Even most liberals wouldn't make such a thoughtless statement.
I'm actually beginning to have pity for Obama. He has been propped up by so many for so long, he has lost touch with reality. Has no idea how far he's gonna fall.
Impuissance cafe......but-but-but-but we're right! We are!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Chase,So that's the conservative story, the one you're all sticking to, that the guntoters at the townhall meetings were liberals?To be a conservative today means ignoring reality, doesn't it?
Nobody I encountered today had aught to say about this. Strange, in'nit?However, at the grocery something else funny happened.Overheard: The checkout clerk asked the bagger if he spoke Spanish. He answered, "Yes." She asked, "OK, how do you say 'tortilla' in Spanish?
So, phosphrius - gonna keep posting your hatred over here?What - no room for you on Huffington? They too much for you?You just got schoold in your ignorance. You can continue to post the stuff your idols are telling you to here or you can actually take an opportunity to learn something.(oh - silly me - this is a left wing lemming we're talking about.)Uh - how's the sperm count doing on your Pelosi poster?
Hey - anyone here blamed Obama for reciving the Nobel Prize?It's not his fault he got served - he didn't campaign for it or anything. And I don't believe that anyone blames him.But it sure seems like a loft of left-wing brain-deads are coming here HOPING that somethhing happens like that.Anyone here say that Obama is the Worst President Ever?Please. point it out to me. I'm conservative, but I don't believe that he's the worst ever, nor - hopefully - likely to be. There's still time though. We will havce to wait and see.STRAW MEN(to the tune of Toyland)Straw men, straw menleftwingers like their straw menOnce they get told to say itthey march happily in stepStraw men, straw men,the left likes them because they're afraid of real men.Sweet dreams to the left childrenReal adults will keep you safe tonight
As I type, the number of comments on the subject of Obama's Prize stands at 997, about to cross 1000!!!
Chase,I didn't say all criticism of Obama is payback for Bush, i said all criticism from the right is payback for Bush.The left criticizes Obama for any number of perfectly of perfectly good reasons: his continuation of various Bush policies concerning wire-tapping and interrogation, his slow movement, or no movement on DADT, and so on. As I say, just check the left leaning blogs. A whole lot of criticism aimed at Obama.On the right, it's all hysterical shrieks of "Socialism" and "Baby-killer!" and so on. Pure crap.As to the poll you cite. . . good one! I missed that! So conservatism is the single largest ideological group.Odd. I didn't realize that there were so many creationists in this country. Or libertarians. Or teabaggers. or Rush Limbaugh fans. Or fans of torture. Or anti-homosexuals. Or secessionists. Or Ron Paul supporters.Very odd.
that the guntoters at the townhall meetings were liberals?Oooooo, NICE TRY!If you can read on that 56K modem and go back up the comments, you'll see no one said "liberal".But nice attempt. Have a cookie and go jerk-off on your Charlie Rangel autographed picture again.
I didn't realize thatVery Good! An honest statement from phosphorius!You get a bonus - Ethan gets to watch while you jerk-off to YouTubes of Eliot Spitzer.
Very odd.Self-awareness is always a step in the right direction, phossy.Good for you!
Chase,True, you said "Democrats and Larouche supporters and people with warrants."Look, if you're claiming that some democrats are conservative, I agree, and I have no use for them. I'm a liberal. I vote democrat because it's the better instrument of liberal values.The GOP is conservative. Which is why it fucks up so consistently.
Go to isteve.com for a hilarious parody of Zero's reaction upon receiving the NPP.
"You get a bonus - Ethan gets to watch while you jerk-off to YouTubes of Eliot Spitzer."Oh boy, did you ever make a mistake! A big one!You obviously forgot that you are posting on a blog with mostly conservative posters.Conservatives who rise above ideology and who are interested solely in Truth with a capital "T".Why, even now, I expect the poster who is always accusing me of "straw man" to be readying his critique of your obvious ad hominem atack.You have pissed off a sane and intelleigent group of people with your gutter logic, and any second now, they will register their disapproval of your juvenile antics. . .Any second now. . . Any second . . . Hmmm. . . I guess I better not hold my breath.
I'm a liberal. I vote democrat because it's the better instrument of liberal values.Okay - reasonable conversation.Actually you make a truthful and reasonable statement.But then you have to go and try to make this statement:The GOP is conservative. Which is why it fucks up so consistently.If that's where you want to go in a real discussion, then why should others waste good time reading you or giving you the time of day?I am a conservative politically.I have issues that matter more to me than others - and that number is more than 5, just like you. But I am not a party slave nor an issue slave, and I like to believe that in all honesty - and your statement above seems to mean this - that you are not either.In the last election in California, I voted for John McCain. But I also voted for 4 Democrats in state and county elections. I am "pro-life" but my Congressman is "pro-choice". Yet I supported him in the primary over a pro-life candidate, because I believed he would be a better Representative for our area and State and the country.I do not agree with Barack Obama's policies - except when I do. I do not believe for a minute that Obama hates this country - I believe that he - and his wife - both love the Ubited States. They're just wrong. I also do not believe - yet - that he is going to destroy this country's values or freedoms. I believe that our country is stronger than one man - even a President - to substantially weaken it's freedoms. But I may be proven wrong.So -after 9 months of Obama - I am still willing to praise the good things he does, and to wait and see what else he might have going. 9 months is still early. Gelroge Bush deserved the same benefit of the doubt after his first 9 months - and not the revisionist views that he did nothing about Bin Laden. And most conservatives are willing to give Obama the same benefit of time.Now that doesn't make me "libertarian" or anything other than a conservative. Just like the largest self-identifying group in that most recent poll.So, phosphorius - I can respect you for being liberal and wanting to discuss and debate those views.But I won't respect anyone who comes here looking to start arguments just because they don't like what what they are fed all day ablut "conservatives" by a mostly left-leaning news media.
So, are we getting closer to an Althouse penned (rather than Althouse endorsed) "how Obama lost me" post? There's a good way for Obama to brush off the criticism that comes with being honored before accomplishment. He could take the award and the money and immediately hand it over to an effective teacher who works with children who have been left behind, a extremely dedicated global poverty fighter, someone who is working in the slumbs of some major city, Rio for instance. If Obama were to "pass the peace" he'd be applauded by a whole lot of people. If he lets go the money and gives it to someone who really has done good work, who really has accomplished a lot without any acclaim, who could use that money to transform lives... Obama would show himself a great man. I'd like think he would do something like this.
Great comment, Chase.That's the same place I'm coming from too (including the voting for McCain and voting Democrats in local elections).
I just want to know:Who nominated him to the committee?
slumbs? Clearly I've already been drinking too much and it's not even 5 yet. Only thing to do is drink some more.
Chase is one of those reasonable types who doesn't get it till he's frog marched to a reeducation camp. Coming soon, coming soon.
Chase,"So -after 9 months of Obama - I am still willing to praise the good things he does, and to wait and see what else he might have going. 9 months is still early. Gelroge Bush deserved the same benefit of the doubt after his first 9 months - and not the revisionist views that he did nothing about Bin Laden. And most conservatives are willing to give Obama the same benefit of time."I don't have any numbers to back me up, but this strikes me as OBVIOUSLY not true. You can't really believe that conservatives are taking a "wait and see" attitude towards Obama. To do that you would have to :1) Ignore everything Glenn Beck says.2) Ignore everything Rush Limbaugh says3) Ignore most of what Ann Althouse (who misses Bush!) says4) Ignore everything Michael Steele says5) Forget that "Impeachobama.org" went up the day Obama was nominated6) Forget all that talk about secession, and "going Galt" and so on.Which brings me back to your claim that "conservatism" is the most popular ideology these days: I bet you will now say that Rush, and Beck, and Steele, and Althouse and so on. . . do not represent your views.Fine.But then what the fuck is a conservative, anyway?
...ok...here is why he won the award from the guys who gave it to him! put aside the snark and read and thinkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-to-obama-defe_n_316098.html
Which brings me back to your claim that "conservatism" is the most popular ideology these days:Uh hem - it's not me "claiming" it, remember?I bet you will now say that Rush, and Beck, and Steele, and Althouse and so on. . . do not represent your views.I will say that they represent some of my views, but not always in the way that I agree with they're characterization. And some of their views do not represent mine, and it's different for each commentator from one to the next, just as it's hard to believe that every liberal pundit agrees with or represents you. You have pretty much said such in the past.But then what the fuck is a conservative, anyway?Dude, that takes a just a little more time, and it's movie night out with the wife - leaving in 5 minutes (or when she says she's ready!).So - if you are willing to check back here over the weekend, then I'm willing to answer it.And thanks for the actual, reasoned questions.
A conservative is somebody who spits right back at a liberal.
Ann, you've drawn out the crazies. How dare you criticize Obama, even a little bit.
Rose said..."Ann, you've drawn out the crazies. How dare you criticize Obama, even a little bit."Nice try, you disingenuous conservative, but as I have said several times now, go look at ANY liberal blog right now and see criticism of Obama. Go look at what Michael Moore has said about O's Nobel Peace prize on Huffington post.Liberals criticize Obama all the time.It's just not of the form "Obama did/said something. . . which proves he's the worst president ever!!"That's the conservative racket these days.
Ghandi was a brave man who stood behind his convictions. No, I don't agree with him... this is a man who told the Jews to accept the gas ovens. A foolish sentiment, but he truly accomplished something and his personal struggle is the most excellent example of what the Nobel Peace Prize stands for. But european aristocrats don't like him, so he's never won his prize. Obama's a huge celebrity, and the real point of this prize is to cause political turmoil in the USA by 'kicking' republicans.I don't mind. It's very interesting that they have made such an extreme statement. Why shouldn't we be talking about this? They will be laughing about this 100 years from now!Phosphorous talks about how evil Bush is, but he knows he's full of hot air... that's why he has to make up comical accusations about 'crushing children's testicles' and killing millions of 'bad people'. It's not acceptable anymore to thoughtfully compare Bush and Obama, because Obama has failed to do take a stand at all. To great extent, he's followed Bush's orders... he's increased our troops presence in the middle east and all that. He obviously in insincere and has promised to deviate from Bush's direction, but it's not clear he's ever going to.Democrats have to attempt to mock Bush so ridiculously because they have no argument against him anymore. Obama did the same shit, even if he deviates later. You guys elected someone who kept Gitmo open, kept the renditions, kept up the unilateral bombings, etc etc etc etc.What's so funny is how this silly euroweenie Jimmy Carter Award doesn't take itslef seriously. Surely they could have picked a couple of liberal heroes in Chinese and Iranian prisons for a few years and THEN given Obama his absolutely obvious prize... if Obama's ship wasn't sinking so fast, that is.
I guess that I too am a little bit obsessed right now.More welcome mat anti-theft messages. Photoshopped this time. Apologies for threadjack, but that's what obsession does to a person.Plus, I keep misspelling mat as mate. Ha ha ha .
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove insisting that liberals think this is stupid TOO, phos. Conservatives can't think it's stupid because Liberals think it's stupid?I'm really not sure how you get there from here. Oh, sure, suddenly you've got an actual, real-live, example of Liberals thinking something about Obama is dumb. Not something *he's* done, of course, but heck, Ace of Spades said the same thing, Althouse said it too... Obama didn't do this. No matter how they justify it the committee that awarded this prize to Obama made fools of themselves. But wow, it really is nice to see some criticism finally happening, some comedians finding some humor in the man... but honestly phos... THIS is not criticism of OBAMA, even though there has been more criticism of him lately, this is not it.
oh, and Ann, a follow up to my question above -- around minute 18 you say something to the affect of 'the fact is...he's like a child prodigy .. he has prematurely been elevated to positions he didnt deserve'. So, clearly, no person would put BO in the same category w/ E Weisel, MLK, Mandela, D. Tutu etc. So if this is one's view of the Nobel Peace Prize, then yes, he doesnt deserve it. But, in light of your statement that no one deserves the presidency, what else are you using to make this analogy to him as a child prodigy ? Your arguments typically seem to me that you're trying to cut through other people's Obama-worship, and sometimes also Obama's cockiness. But here you seem to be piling on w/ Rush et al as Obama being an illegitimate President (i.e. child prodigy) ...so, what gives Ann ? I cant imagine that you agree w/ people who want to delegitimize a President you voted for and for an office which he won in a fair and democratic election.
DARNIT i got a bunch of material i dont want to .. 'waste' .. in the 90th comment.with all do respect to the commenters in the 90s(bunch of have beens ;)
Which is best?Yanks loosing in the 9th?or Obama getting the Nobel Prize?smack down the middle 50/50.
"This" being the Nobel Prize, of course.Plenty of criticism of Obama for his waffling inaction in Afghanistan, the "stimulous" bill, unemployment, trying to push "emergency" reform of how health care is provided, extra taxes, near criminal lack of understanding of basic freedom and governmental checks and balances resulting in our shameful policy toward Honduras, co-opting religious arguments rather than rational ones to push his policies, dissing Poland, cash for clunkers understanding of economics, and I'll say unemployment a second time, because it matters.I think I've seen one person today in these comments argue that Obama knew of and wanted this award. Just one.
Slow Joe (who gets slower by the minute) said:"Phosphorous talks about how evil Bush is, but he knows he's full of hot air... that's why he has to make up comical accusations about 'crushing children's testicles' and killing millions of 'bad people'."I never siad he killed "millions of bad people". Go back and check. I said that you seem to think that the only people who died as a result of Bush's actions were bad people. You're the one who said that Obama's actions will result in "tremendous suffering for millions of good people." No evidence, just bare assertion. . . just liek a conservative.as for crushing a child's testicles, don't ask me, ask John Yoo, Bush's legal counsel for much of his tenure.But. . . am I to understand that you are AGAINSR crushing a child's testicles if that were the only way to obtain crucail information from the child's parent, a known terrorist?Why do you hate America?
Synova,You are completely missing the point.It is the standard line of conservatives everywhere that "libs" worship Obama and never criticize him.This is a lie: go check any liberal blog and you will find pointed criticism of Obama. And this has been the case for months now.But the criticsm from the left is sane and well-argued. The criticism from the right is shrill and hysterical mostly. Conservtives immediately started talking impeachment and secession and all kinds of crazy shit. . . when as you all admit he hasn't doen anything yet, good or bad.You are all willing to wait fifty or sixty years to see if peace breaks out in Iraq. . . and if it does, Bush will be vindicated.Obama gets less than a year before you idiots declare his presidency a failure.You are all a bunch of partisan hacks, I don't care how often or loudly you declare your own "ndependence of thought."
I think I've seen one person today in these comments argue that Obama knew of and wanted this award. Just one.I speculated that if I loved Obama that much as to give him the most prestigious award in the planet i may have been tempted to give him a heads up.I was putting myself in the shoes of an admiring, awe struck, committee member. thats all.
Hundreds and hundreds of comments today on this and still no answer to the basic question asked again here by ac245: What did he do before Feb 1st to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize? All the silly defenses fall without that as a foundation.Remember he has increased troop levels and continued virtually all Bush war policy.I have no doubt that if he won the prize for physics it would be defended equally.
Obama gets less than a year before you idiots declare his presidency a failure.You are all a bunch of partisan hacks, I don't care how often or loudly you declare your own "ndependence of thought."Right, because the only independent thinkers are the ones who agree that there's no way Obama could be a failure in 9 months.If you read carefully, you might see a lot of folks hoping he'll pull a Clinton in 2010 and realize the country isn't ready for his radicalism.But even if you don't, it shouldn't be hard for you to realize that if one objects to what he's trying to do, Obama becomes a failure if he fails to accomplish his goals—but even more so if he succeeds.In some cases, partisan ship. In other cases, ideological difference.You'll find here that many who kinda-sorta supported Bush regard Part D as a failure, for example. And most regard his non-veto status and his "compassionate conservatism" failures as well.wv: ograpAs in, ograp, I gould've done something more produgtive with my time.
There is one basis on which he deserve the Peace Prize: He is an American President, and since world peace is primarily maintained by America. Then, all our Presidents should be awarded it upon inauguration. Therefore, I hereby change sides in this debate and agree with the award.Norway has finally thanked America for world peace.You're welcome.Can't wait till Lynne Cheney gets hers.
"You'll find here that many who kinda-sorta supported Bush regard Part D as a failure, for example. And most regard his non-veto status and his "compassionate conservatism" failures as well."So you're contention is that lots of people only "kinds sorta" supported Bush?There's no deception liek self-deception, is there.What then of all those conservatives here who miss Bush?And just for the record: yes, nine months is too soon to declare a presidency a failure.
"But the criticsm from the left is sane and well-argued. The criticism from the right is shrill and hysterical mostly."Someone with even the beginnings of self-awareness would understand that this is nothing more than "those who agree with me are sane and reasonable and those who disagree with me are shrill and hysterical."And thank you Blake, yes... there has been a whole lot of hoping that Obama would "pull a Clinton" and moderate his policies. In fact, Obama may have done more to rehabilitate Clinton's reputation among those on the right than any other person or thing. Also, really phos... pushing through the stimulous bill, taking over GM, and other related accomplishments hardly qualify as not having *done* anything. Obama has been busy domestically.
Phos, Bush received a whole lot of criticism from conservatives. This isn't delusion, it's the truth.And if you're trying to contend that it's not criticism unless conservatives hated the guy and opposed him... what does it mean that you think it's so very important that liberals have been criticizing Obama?
Danielle...What happened to the President of Honduras this summer that got Obama, Clinton, Chavez and Castro and their fellow Marxist Thugs so shaken up over the last 6 months of Zelaya's legitimate term of office having been cancelled under due process of law according to that Republic's Constitution? Why are the Obamanation's closest allies so shook up over a legitimate way used legally to block a once legitimate President from faking an election to throw out the Constitutional protections of the Honduran people from being ruled by a Marxist Dictatorship for Life by that once legitimate President? Or is all of this just too weird an idea to be discussed anywhere in the Media by anyone at all?
SynovaCould you point out some sane Right Wing arguments for us? Because mostly what I hear are bullshit about 'death panels' and 'marxism' and 'our seniors will be put on a death list' and 'Obama was not born in America' and 'The Census will be used to put us in internment camps', etc.Face it, the GOP is down right now and they are using shrill and hysterical arguments to make headlines.This is not to say the Left wasn't also shrill and hysterical when Bush was in power. But it's the Right's turn and they are not disappointing. There are some nuts on your side.
LOL Matt... yep, everything every conservative has ever said is insane. You're being quite persuasive with that tone. We have to prove otherwise, because you are so insulated you have never seen any evidence contrary.Phos, I don't think it's possible to discuss this stuff with you. Sorry... you're a humorless sort, and you're committed in a way that just isn't fun to deal with.Obama's ship sank so fast they had to pull a stunt as dumb as this prize. You probably don't even realize it. No biggie.
Synova.Also, really phos... pushing through the stimulous bill, taking over GM, and other related accomplishments hardly qualify as not having *done* anything. Obama has been busy domestically.And there is some consensus among economists that his actions have somewhat softened the economic blow, preventing a deep depression and giving us just a recession.It's always difficult to decide cause and effect in economics. . . but it's safew to say that it's too early to call his presidency a disaster.Unless you're a conservative, apparently.And I suppose this is just one of those issues upon which liberals and conservatives will disagree on the facts. . . but it is my recollection that Bush got very little criticism from the right, until 2006 when the GOP lost big. Then it was safe to go against him. Before that, conservative fell in line.Perhaps your recollection is different.
For the first time this century, we had a president whose primary selling point was NOT his willingness to crush a child's testicles.That was genuinely imbecilic enough to qualify as performance art, which I devoutly hope it was.How embarrassing.
"Phos, I don't think it's possible to discuss this stuff with you. Sorry... you're a humorless sort, and you're committed in a way that just isn't fun to deal with.Obama's ship sank so fast they had to pull a stunt as dumb as this prize. You probably don't even realize it. No biggie."So you do feel jsutified in declaring Obama's presidency a failure?Because usually the conservatives here say something like "He's a baby-killing socialist who is a danger to America. . . but I'm not saying he's the worst president ever!"Or some shit like that.So, just for the record: you are ready after only nine months to declare Obama a failure?
His first 9 months have been a failure with forecasts of future disaster. Better?
Then you aren't listening, Matt.Rationing is a "sane" concern to any system the government is in control of... it's "sane" to view government ownership of GM as "socialism"... the Census should be as impeccably independent and separate from those in power as possible, not moved *into* the White House... Obama is supporting the preferred policies of Hugo Chavez in relationship to Honduras... birthers might not be *sane* but they are harmless... it is "sane" to recognize the broken window fallacy in Cash for Clunkers... it is "sane" to notice parallels between the staged adulation of the school children in oppressive dictatorships and wonder how Obama's supporters can be so blind to History and context... it is "sane" to instinctively understand that debt is not cured by throwing money at a problem... it is "sane" to recognize the inherent danger in trying to suppress, by redefining, free speech... and it's only *observant* to notice that the race card or racism is pulled out at every opportunity to dismiss opposition ideas even when the racism has to be imagined inside MoDo's head.If all you hear is shrill hysteria it's because that's all that gets through when you've got your fingers shoved in your ears shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.
Kent said:"That was genuinely imbecilic enough to qualify as performance art, which I devoutly hope it was.How embarrassing."Really? So you deny that according to Bush's legal counsel at the time, Bush had the right to crush a child's testicles in order to rpocure actionable intelligence?I guess Bush never publicly addressed the issue. . . but he followed his counsel's advice on everything else.Are you claiming that Bush did not have that right?
"but it is my recollection that Bush got very little criticism from the right, until 2006..."And you totally missed the 2004 chorus of "I'm voting for him while holding my nose?"How observant of you.
"And you totally missed the 2004 chorus of "I'm voting for him while holding my nose?""In all seriousness, I only ever heard that in the past tense: "I voted for Bush while holding my nose."This said by conservatives after 2006. At the time, I only recall conservatives, including Ann, supporting Bush as "the only man who can keep us safe from terrorism."But again, your recollection may differ.
"So, just for the record: you are ready after only nine months to declare Obama a failure?"A failure at what?Enacting *his* policies? I don't know if he will get anywhere with that or not. I'm hoping "not".If by "failure" you mean "has the wrong policies, promotes the wrong things, is tragically wrong about Honduras, pisses off "unimportant" allies, lies about what policies will cost and who will pay for them, well... I'll go on record saying he is a failure right *now*.He's got three years to "pull a Clinton" and figure out foreign policy and stop trying to get the government to take over enormous sections of our economy for the first time... I hear he's taking the time now to read up on military issues, better late than never, eh?.. so he might not be a failure in the future.We can hope.
Hey Matt... what do you think of the crushing children's testicles example of sane and reasoned Liberal argument?
Phosphorious...Do you think that the reason Ghandi could never win was that he was fighting an Empire in a non-violent method, yet indeed he was fighting to win. While Jimmy Carter and Obama really had control over humongous violence trained men and weapons and refused to fight any Empires, either USSR, or Persian Gulf Oil States. The Norwegians only seem to respect the will to lose that is held to with great courage and considerable PR stunts to decieve the American Red Neck warrior types who until recently still had a voting majority in the USA? That's how I am seeing this great deception from Norwegians calling itself a peace loving position. IMO we had better Buckle up for world wide wars now that the USA s surrender of its role as military superpower will set nations everywhere free to engulf the Globe in violence until we have such a Crisis that it requires the UN to take over in our place. Funny how things happen these days.
Synova,"I'll go on record saying he is a failure right *now*."But if peace breaks out in Iraq anytime in the next fifty years, then Bush's ill-conceived, poorly executed and essentially fraudulent invasion will be declared a success, right?I suppose it's the hallmark of bias that those who suffer from it don't see it.
"Really? So you deny that according to Bush's legal counsel at the time, Bush had the right to crush a child's testicles in order to rpocure actionable intelligence?"And the right makes shrill arguments?
As usual Synova, great comments.
Synova and others:"Hey Matt... what do you think of the crushing children's testicles example of sane and reasoned Liberal argument?"Okay. . . so the story is that I'm insane for thinking that Bush would ever crush a child's testicles.Fine. I was merely quoting what John Yoo, Bush's legal advisor who outlined a defense of the interrogation procedures (i.e. torture) that Bush did use. Yoo said that Bush had that right. But you all know that he would never do sucha thing, and I'm a crazy "lib" fro bringing it up.Again, fine.But I do have a question for you all:If the US had a terrorist in custody, who knew the location of a ticking timebomb, a nuke, that would go off in New York City. . . scratch that, some city that's not full of "libs" who deserve to die. . . Dallas, say, and the only way to get that terrorists to talk was to crush the testicles of his child. . . and we know that it's the only way to get him to talk, because he's been waterboarded eighty or nonety times and hasn;t cracked (because waterboarding is really just "sprinkling water on his face"). . . . . .would you do it?I'm genuinely interested.
"But if peace breaks out in Iraq anytime in the next fifty years, then Bush's ill-conceived, poorly executed and essentially fraudulent invasion will be declared a success, right?"That would be why Obama wins a second Nobel for making Iraq a peaceful democracy all on his own, albeit an ill-conceived, poorly executed and essentially fraudulent one.
Phos... you asked and I answered. Anyone at all can look and see what I said without even having to scroll up for it."I'm genuinely interested."Are you?
traditional guy,I will be accused of being snarky, but I honestly have no idea what you are saying.I take it that you think that pacifism is a dangerously naive position that can only result in a state of total war. . . although you have a grudging respect for Gandhi's pacifism, because he had no choice; if he had had an army, he would have used it, is what I think you're saying?And also that it's a good idea to have the US as unelected world peacekeeper, but a terribel idea for the UN to fill that role?Seriously, just trying to understand.
"". . .would you do it?"Yes.Do you think nobody's child will get injured if the nuke goes off in N.Y.We could just take his child to N.Y., but then he would gladly sacrifice his kid, nuts and all.Silly question.
Synova said..."Phos... you asked and I answered. Anyone at all can look and see what I said without even having to scroll up for it."Perhaps I'm as slow as Slow Joe, but. . . Where exactly did you share your opinion of testicle crushing?You seemed to think that my bringing it up was a "shrill liberal argument". . . but you never said you were against it.Are you?
bagoh20 said...". . .would you do it?" Yes.Ok, that's one conservative vote for crushing a child's testicles. So here's the follow up question: do you think Bush would have done it?
I understood traditionalguy to be saying that it had nothing to do with Ghandi's peaceful methods since his *goal* was victory. Of course, maybe there is some other reason that the most iconic example in the whole world of winning and ending a conflict through peaceful means doesn't have a Nobel Peace prize.(Maybe Arafat won because he wasn't trying for victory or to end the conflict between Palistine and Israel but drag it out forever while he pocketed even more foreign aid to leave to his wife when he died. Come to think of it, Tutu sort of hung in there forever, too, didn't he.)
"Ok, that's one conservative vote for crushing a child's testicles. So here's the follow up question: do you think Bush would have done it?"I hope so. I hope he would crush my nuts to save thousands from the excruciating death and pain that you somehow think is better than getting your nuts crushed which would leave you virtually unharmed afterward.We are talking about a horrible death for thousands including children, burned to death slowly in schools. You'd opt for that?I'm just trying to understand?
SynovaSo it's 'sane' to continue with the current health care insurance mess we have now - when the rest of the civilized world has a better [less expensive] system - and better life expectancy [we rank around #50]. If 'rationing' were such a problem then Canada wouldn't rank #10 on that list.What's wrong with the government having a stake in GM? Are you opposed to buying American? Are you opposed to the government trying to insure jobs for people in this tough economic time?I think it is sane to follow the rule of law as is the case in Honduras. Chavez may agree but so do most of the world leaders!Cash for Clunkers was a success, actually. Lots of people got good deals. Are they complaining? Why are you? I agree tax money should not go to some banks and financial institutions. But if they go back to people that's not so bad.Have you seen 'Jesus Camp' where kids pray and cry for a cardboard cutout of GW Bush? Yeah, it's nuts. In general though why is it wrong for kids to show respect for the President? You are making the 'Hitler' argument. That is shrill. What plans do you [and your side] have for solving the debt. Higher taxes would solve it but I know you don't support that. Ending wars? No you probably don't support that either. Hmmm. Ahh yes, sending the elderly into the streets by ending social security and medicare? And making parents of children pay for private schools? And closing national parks. And making all highways privately owned toll roads? Anything else? How about privatizing the police and fire departments?Who is suppressing free speech? You are not being serious. No one can stop the right or the left from some of the shit they say. No one should try and no one is. But calling out one side or the other to be honest and to stop lying is not free speech suppression.The race card. Hmmm. Well when Rush says Colin Powell only voted for Obama because he is black... Who is playing with race? Although I will agree the race card is played by the left. So is the gender card.
"We could just take his child to N.Y., but then he would gladly sacrifice his kid, nuts and all.Silly question."It is a silly question, isn't it. Believing that someone who would blow up New York would talk to save his or her own kid is irrational. It probably wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up a deception and making the terrorist *believe* that his kid was getting tortured.Of course "torture" as a concept is so watered down that even deception is against the rules anymore.
"We are talking about a horrible death for thousands including children, burned to death slowly in schools. You'd opt for that?I'm just trying to understand?"Yes we are talking about exactly that, and this is exactly why I did not vote for Bush: there was no limit to what violence he would inflict in the name of "protecting America." And forget the fact that he was mostly incompetent. I would have voted against him if it were in fact the case that tortueing a child was the only way to keep us safe.Now. . . before you jump all over me for being "dangerously naive" and an "America hating peacnik", let me aks you. . . Would you abort the child of a terrorist if that was the only way to get him to talk?
Synova said:"It is a silly question, isn't it. Believing that someone who would blow up New York would talk to save his or her own kid is irrational. It probably wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up a deception and making the terrorist *believe* that his kid was getting tortured.Of course "torture" as a concept is so watered down that even deception is against the rules anymore."It's no sillier than thinking that someone who would nuke Dallas (we're not using NYC, remember, too many "libs") would not be willing to sacrifice his own life, or to be willing to undergo a bit of waterboarding (which isn't even torture, right?)And just for the record. . . your answer is that it is logically possible for the situation to arise, and so it's silly to even think about it.Right?
"Would you abort the child of a terrorist if that was the only way to get him to talk?I'm pro choice, and his dad made the choice.But, I am stunned at your willingness to choose to come on on line the next day reading about the horrors. Thousands of personal stories of terrible suffering and death of innocents. This would go on for months, and the city would be ruined for generations, not to mention the thousands who would be killed by our military in retribution somewhere, but its all worth it because one child kept his nuts. Good choice.
Matt... You're associating what you believe with "sane" and what you don't believe with "not-sane". How does that definition work? Can someone be "sane" and wrong (in your opinion) or not? And *again*... our life expectancy is so low because we count live births honestly and because of violent deaths in some demographic groups... neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with the quality of health care in this country. Indeed, survival rates for "curable" cancer in the US are far far better than in England (for one example.)The rush to do something, as if *anything* would be better than what we have now is irrational.And *yes* I think that the government having a stake in GM is very bad as is any other assumption of the means of production by government. That you think this is grand is irrelevant.
bagoh20 said:"I'm pro choice, and his dad made the choice."Ah, this "conservatism" is such a slippery positon! Because of course Bush was unwilling to sacrifice a few embryos in order to possibly cure variosu diseases and prevent all kinds of misery and death. The pro-life position, as I understand it, is that it is NEVER acceptable to sacrifice innocent life so that good may come of it.I suppose different conservatives have different interpretations.Does it bother you that Bush, being pro-life, would not have aborted a terrorist's baby?
It is a silly question, isn't it. Believing that someone who would blow up New York would talk to save his or her own kid is irrational.Yes, it is. It's so silly that Phosphorius could have rebutted it with one nut tied behind his back. Which, I suppose, is why he simply let it stand unanswered instead. As for Bagoh20's response about offering his own testicles in order to save New York (which, I note, is a procedure that he seems to think would leave one significantly less debilitated than others might think), I'm not sure even I would attempt to interpret that one. But I guess it is touching to know that he would sacrifice himself in a ghastly miscarriage of justice simply for the unassured prospect of saving so many other lives. Not sure how much utility I would find in this game of "nuts for cities" chicken. But the symbolism of it is as interesting, and touching, as it is strange and intriguing.
(Dammit, my post to Synova was supposed to read:And just for the record. . . your answer is that it is logically impossible for the situation to arise, and so it's silly to even think about it.Dammit again!))
"I suppose different conservatives have different interpretations."Of course, dude. Our highest value is freedom, not equality. We respect individualism."Does it bother you that Bush, being pro-life, would not have aborted a terrorist's baby?"I think he would, since the scenario offers no other solution than saving thousands with one abortion.The embryos are not the only way to stem cell cures and in fact are the least successful source to date. Besides, he didn't outlaw the research, just refused to fund it with tax money. Details matter.
Phos... go read what I linked.You got no standing to argue the ticking-bomb scenario, none whatsoever.The anti-torture Bush-is-evil crowd never was anti-torture at all... they just wanted it on the hush-hush so we could keep our public hands clean... show a good example...Now, sure, maybe you're astute enough to recognize that Matt Damon and some lauded former CIA officer war-on-terrorism, anti-torture critic of the administration are both ignorant morons... but they were hardly alone in viewing the public face of our nation more important than truth and integrity.Your hypotheticals are irrelevant and desiring legal clarification is arguably a president's JOB.But it *looked* bad and could be spun as a desire to use torture and looking bad is more important than truth... to some. Don't codify it... don't make clear to your people what they can and can't do, what is authorized and what is not... just expect them to break the law to keep you safe and then to take the punishment for the sake of our national honor.I think it's obscene.Damon: ”Look, the best line about torture I’ve heard came from [retired CIA officer turned war-on-terrorism critic] Milt Beardon,” Damon says. “He said, `If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that’s going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I’ll find out. But don’t codify that. Just let me break the law.’ “Which I think is right. You can’t legalize torture. But anybody would do it in that situation. You’d do it to me in that situation; you’d pull out my fingernails if you thought I knew something like that.”
Trooper's been complaining that I haven't uploaded many posts recently. I suppose I could write something and title it "Would You Sacrifice Your Nuts to Save New York?", and link it to this thread. Puts a whole new spin on those Uncle Sam recruitment posters. Such Faustian bargains the right traffics in.
'Scuse me, could we hold the poo flinging for a minute and lift a glass in Obama's honor?
Instead of leaving the troops without any body armor, the right should have just taken a cue from Bagoh20 and shielded our soldiers everywhere except for a gaping, conspicuous unprotected area right about the groin. The generals would have led them into battle with their "equipment" dangling open in the wind. Just for a show of bravery. Or something. wv: lenom
"Because of course Bush was unwilling to sacrifice a few embryos in order to possibly cure variosu diseases and prevent all kinds of misery and death."bagoh already said it but... Bush did not make embryonic stem cell research illegal. He just reserved tax dollars to research that used certain already existing embryonic stem cell lines and would not use our tax money on new ones. But caring about that means caring about being accurate and factual and all that boring stuff.
It's funny, I've heard these ticking bomb scenarios forever and the anti-torture side never admits to choosing to let thousands die horribly to avoid hurting someone, even if just waterboarding in needed. Instead they do what Monatna just did, deflect with a joke, or assume they the victims would just get lucky somehow, or just keep asking questions, like Phos, but never take responsibility for their position and say: "I so hate torture that I would let thousands be tortured and killed to avoid hurting one person, even the perpetrator."
It's funny, I've heard these ticking bomb scenarios forever and the anti-torture side never admits to choosing to let thousands die horribly to avoid hurting someone, even if just waterboarding in needed.Instead they do what Monatna just did, deflect with a joke, or assume they the victims would just get lucky somehow, or just keep asking questions, like Phos, but never take responsibility for their position and say: "I so hate torture that I would let thousands be tortured and killed to avoid hurting one person, even the perpetrator."No. Actually, (and unlike Synova and others on the right - of whom the former simply deflected with all the moral force of a tu quoque involving Matt Damon), Bagoh20 takes a clear position, and deserves credit for it. Especially so given the strange and graphic trade-off he oh so unambiguously offered as a response.But of course, this doesn't get us to the efficacy portion of the argument - which I suppose is just an afterthought to the ideologues and others unpersuaded by pragmatism and undeterred by reason. wv: arier
Well that's true too, isn't it. Phos hasn't answered his own questions.So, phos... if the only way to do it was crunch some little kid's testicles and it was YOUR decision...How would you chose? To let a many thousands of people die horribly and spend your life in volunteer work in hospitals taking care of radiation sickness and disease... or would you torture the kid and save them all?Either or... we'll wait for your answer.And no deflecting! Bad, phos! Give us your answer.
I'll go to bed now, safe in the knowledge that our new commander in chief will, if needed, do whatever nastiness is required to not be the President that let N.Y. city's children be burned alive. He will do that, because has the job and not the luxury to simply talk about it. In this regard I think he would be more ruthless than Bush. It does not take experience to see the clarity of that decision when it's you that has to make it. This is about the only decision I trust him with. Sleep tight.
I doubt he's for it. He clearly stated his political sympathies and is offering this Socratic dialogue in order to point out what are clearly unanswered inconsistencies and ambiguities in the governing values of the right.
Yes, MUL, you're right. I didn't answer either.But honestly... I just can't see the scenario happening. Firstly, because waterboarding does tend to work and why wouldn't it? And don't we have drugs of any sort? Setting aside impossible scenarios, the idea that we might have a "ticking bomb" situation and have the person responsible in custody... I would prefer that those doing the interrogation have clear regulations, supervision, and review that *yes* allowed them to get the information. And I want our real policy to be *more* restrictive than what the public, other nations, and criminals and terrorists are allowed to believe is true. I want rumors of secret rooms and perfect drugs to create the assurance in any mind of what will happen if they *don't* tell and tell quickly.The last thing I want is for our President to assure the world that even the CIA is following the freaking Army Field Manual that was designed to guide untrained interrogators in a war zone. Why not just pass it out to the bad guys so they can study up, huh?Or are we, like Damon, assuming that Obama is lying and that we really *do* torture... we just say we don't?
Synova,I did answer. I would not torture a child. Under any circumstances.As for your claim that the "anti-torture left" were really motivated by a desire to look good rather than to be good. . . if the only proof you have to offer is Matt Damon, then this conversation can't really go any further. . .But look. . . we're drifting here: I said that Bush was willing to crush testicles, and you called me silly for bringing it up. Now you claim that testicle crushing is exactly the right thing to do.Am I still silly for bringing it up?
I dont know.. maybe the Nobel committee is onto something.I want to preemptively award the Red Sox a championship w/o having to go tru these gut-wrenching games.Change the rules.
"and is offering this Socratic dialogue in order to point out what are clearly unanswered inconsistencies and ambiguities in the governing values of the right."So what... Socratic dialog is another way of never having to defend your own point of view?Maybe he should be concerned about the clearly unanswered inconsistencies of the governing values of the left. After all... taking care of your own house first before nagging others about theirs would seem to be a virtue.
Synova, there will be no answer coming. There is only one right answer, and they don't want to admit it. Unfortunately for them, it's not an essay question.
It's always interesting to watch a new liberal come on the Althouse blog. They always some with assumptions pre-loaded. They don't want to engage, they want to attack. They want to prove their moral superiority. However, the language they use (plenty of f-bombs) and the way they express themselves always does just the opposite.WV: inchn. We're inchn toward catastrophe.
Yanks are up two games and the Sox are on the verge loosing a second game..Maybe Obama getting the prize is gods way of letting me down easy.wv murge - yes wv agrees it all boils down to baseball.
But he did point out that the left is clearly comfortable with openly airing their grievances with Obama in a cogent, debate-friendly fashion.And of course, just 'cause I can't resist, I will offer my political analysis of the moment. And it's not just mine, but one echoed by others:The problem is that the right has become so obsessed with "the enemy" that they have difficulty defining their values in any manner that doesn't pose them as a contrast to what others believe. There is an obsession with unity and uniformity that has become politically unhealthy and counterproductive. The left has hit upon that. And they found someone who can do it more effectively than anyone the right can find to effectively counter this theme. Phosphorius has thankfully gotten some of those that are sympathetic to some of the strongest policy elements on the right to engage what they believe in the format of actual arguments. But he had to do that by first coming up with interesting counterfactuals and hypotheticals that I wouldn't have even thought to bother with. He deserves credit for that. Because honestly, the lack of oxygen that this place had seen from focusing on emotive and confrontational bullshit had become so intense, that I stopped seeing a point in engaging rationally. One rightie above talks nonsense about "brooking sentiment". The phrase is actually "brooking dissent". This says something that the right took sentiment as a substitute for dissent, which connotes cogent, and somewhat objective disagreement. "Sentiment" is something else altogether. It was as if bile had become an excuse for an argument. I guess if you're going to puncture bile, you have to be pretty witty to find a way to do that.
"I said that Bush was willing to crush testicles,"A lie. You've no idea what Bush was willing to do. You've made this up and pretended it was true."and you called me silly for bringing it up."I called you "shrill and hysterical" or at least the equivalent of "death panels" or "killing granny". Which it is."Now you claim that testicle crushing is exactly the right thing to do."I never did. I said it was a stupid and impossible scenario. Bagoh said that (pretending the stupid and impossible scenario actually was possible instead of fantasy) that one life, no matter how innocent, was worth the lives of thousands... also innocent.While you seem to think that your moral purity is more valuable than the lives of thousands of children and their painful and horrific end.It must be nice to have moral purity so valuable as that.
It's also amusing that the leftists on this thread insist that the right should criticize Obama in the same way they do: from the left. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
in the perennial argument of right vrs left is interesting to point out how many leftist have crossed over to the right, once theyve matured and grow up.Not as many the other way.If the left were superior thinking this would not be so.
Maybe he should be concerned about the clearly unanswered inconsistencies of the governing values of the left. After all... taking care of your own house first before nagging others about theirs would seem to be a virtue.Well, the big difference would be defining one's views on the basis of reason and not constantly assuming that everyone who has a different perspective than you can't work constructively with you. It's not the left that was in a position to decide to rigidly enforce standards of ideological/partisan purity and define what it means for America to lead the world in what buffoons such as Buford Gulch might prefer to think of as "short answer"/yes-no format. The world is too complex for him and morality is an issue of black and white. Always and forever. No ifs ands or buts. If you guys want to continue demanding ideological purity and intellectual conformity then you can continue not caring about whether the greatest portion of the country can actually relate to you on a pragmatic basis. Or the world, for that matter. But I guess you've already written them off long ago. But in the meantime, it looks like the pointy-headed intellecshualls will win elections, a capacity for America to win more friends than enemies, and a reasoned way to approach policy debates. This comes from something other than an a greater interest than winning than in leading. At some point leading becomes an exercise in something other than ceaselessly beating your view into the ground. wv: grazes
"The problem is that the right has become so obsessed with "the enemy" that they have difficulty defining their values in any manner that doesn't pose them as a contrast to what others believe."Do you realize that this is *exactly* what the left looks like?
in the perennial argument of right vrs left is interesting to point out how many leftist have crossed over to the right, once theyve matured and grow up.Lem seems to have confused "matured and grow (sic) up" with "senile, decrepit, and afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease."In other words, intellectual rigidity has frozen his mind and he mistakes this for wisdom.
Do you realize that this is *exactly* what the left looks like?If I interpret your question correctly, then my answer would be perhaps. But that was years ago. Your perspective of the left's ability to engage is stuck in the nineties, which was a reflection of arguments from earlier times. The right thinks they can continue defining the left in terms of the cold war and other anachronisms. But they're the conservatives. They're the ones who might stand to ask themselves why they want to believe that times haven't changed, when everyone around them seems to think they have. When history seems to think they have. Islamic terrorists are not communists and the left was confronted by a political party and mindset so stultified that they could define themselves in terms of rationality. And the electorate went with it. Change might be scary (especially for you guys), but the rest of the country will get used to it. And then it will become the status quo and you guys will have to co-opt it. Again. But that will take a while. Political cycles are long and slow and don't rotate from major shifts in power overnight.
Lem seems to have confused "matured and grow (sic) up" with "senile, decrepit, and afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease".so what should done with "senile, decrepit, and afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease?just curious
Montana is a most tolerant equal justice liberal i know.congratswv cowth - yes i do when people speak like montana
Dear Lem,I am having trouble comprehending your posts.Try using a noun every once in a while. Less disconnected dependent clauses would also be nice.
"If I interpret your question correctly, then my answer would be perhaps. But that was years ago."I'm pretty sure it was just two weeks ago that Amanda Marcotte (?) was having a hissy fit and telling conservatives they weren't allowed to care about rape.I think that's a pretty strong indication of needing to define your own side as what the other side is not. The horror, really... how to chose? Side with conservatives or give up rape as an issue... I can see how that would be tough.Feminists were concerned with women's rights in Afghanistan as well... up until 2002.Hey, I'd love it if everyone could have reasonable conversations... not accuse people of racism because they want smaller government... that sort of thing. Talking is good.
For someone who is edgy and up to date Montana is sure long winded.reminds of fidel marathons speeches
I am having trouble comprehending your posts.Because i wont play your name calling game?we can have a conversation instead
Kaus suggests the obvious thing to do here: decline the prize.That would floor everybody, and as an additional benefit be the right thing to do.I'd go one better and offer it to Iranian dissidents, but that'd just be crazy and it's why I'm not statesmen. Really, George Anastaplo should finally win and, at any rate, Kaus is brilliantly right, as usual.Also, why are my favorite bloggers Democrats who are constantly pulled to the right? What does that say about me?
Lem -- Montana is an unsophisticated, unemployed tool who cannot spell.Sure does type up a tizzy, though, don't he?
"Change might be scary (especially for you guys), but the rest of the country will get used to it. And then it will become the status quo and you guys will have to co-opt it. Again."MUL, that's the definition of conservative. Progressives and radicals introduce change... conservatives go into damage control mode... when the kinks are mostly worked out what remains is proven and it becomes status quo and conservatives co-opt it.Change *is* scary, particularly when presented as good in it's own right and without risks. People who don't worry about breaking things are scary because they do not seem thoughtful or aware of systems and connections and consequences.It is rather disheartening, though, to see people go on to the next shiny thing and leave what is good behind... things like individual liberties and human rights based on being human, no matter where you were born, free speech and defending creative freedom, opposing tyrants and being willing to make moral judgments and stand up and defend the helpless.If conservatives didn't co-opt what is good and defend it, who would?
Child-testicle-crushing cafe......contemplate your own viciously stupid and repugnant rejection of common sense!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If you want to find voices on the left that aren't so shrill (and they are only becoming more numerous), you might want to avoid Marcotte and others who are stuck fighting yesterday's battles.The Bush years gave us a whole new, wide-open field - chock full of actions and decisions that could be debated in terms of the wisdom behind recent policies, the animating spirit behind different approaches to patriotism, etc. Feminists don't tend to focus on the things that Marcotte debates anymore. They seem to have moved on to boring discussions regarding work-life balance and the like.
In the film a Beautiful Mind it a "deceased" mind that won the Nobel..If this is what Obama meant by "change" I rather we have the "deceased" accomplished mind get it again and again and again.
The Bush years gave us a whole new, wide-open field..again if the aged and unfirm are so bad why do you look back so much?
Machos has no thoughts of his own!And when he does come up with a response to something - it's usually an argument someone else came up with. Some watered-down plagiarism of the newest garbage in the Voice of Narcissistic Conservatism. But he is RICH! (Or so he says). So he thinks this entitles him to say and believe things without being able to make a rational point. Much like how the GOP came to feel. Words confuse him. If the idea can't be expressed in the form of a sound-bite, it shouldn't exist. But most people, if they don't think like this, have stopped trusting morons who do to lead them.Machos doesn't care, though. He has money and he thinks this will save his political backers from oblivion. But it won't. It's really too bad that the one thing money can't buy is brains. Then Machos might have some usefulness left to others in this world.
Obama is in charge with both houses and a supreme nomination..honestly if a supreme had not retired the left could not name a single thing done.why is the left so lethargic?
Machos swept in to attack me (with a single, unoriginal [and stupid] shot) so that he could defend the scattered and disjointed ravings of someone who is clearly drunk!Nice going Machos. Machos misses middle school.
the scattered and disjointed ravings of someone who is clearly drunk!so if im so easy why not go for the kill?why not make a fool out of me?
at least i got you to keep your posting short.thats how i roll (i'm taking an Obama vow)
so if im so easy why not go for the kill?why not make a fool out of me?And with that...Machos, the floor is all yours, man.I am unemployed and Lem is not drunk.Thread over. Phosphorius wins. Like schizophrenics, Machos and Lem get to write their own reality (although no one really cares or listens to them outside of the bubble).
Montana have heard of Radical Son by david horowitz?
Thread over. Phosphorius wins.We used to call that forfeit. And if you forfeit you dont win.another thing Obama has changed?
OK, now hold on a second. Are you trying to tell me we have to tie a bow down on our president? No. I will not do that. But srsly, one time I chanced upon an extremely intense right-wing scare chamber, by an error in my search, I was looking for somebody else and ended up finding David Horowitz and his site "Discover the Networks." It was interesting. I spent a little bit of time over there. He has a bug up his bum about liberals and has collected biographies on a lot of people by various authorship and he attempts to demonstrate how they're connected. He categorizes people and institutions. Ranks them. He talked about the Nobel prizes and totally trashed them. I must say, his damaging expose deeply affected my malleable and impressionable mind. Ever since then I have not been able to look at those the same. I used to keep up strictly for crossword solving purposes, they are a favorite category for constructors along with all the other important awards. Things like this tend to demonstrate to me that mean ol' scary David Horowitz wasn't just blowing smoke.
Lem. I don't need to read what you recommend. I'm rich. And I can spell! I therefore obviously have no use for your typos and concern for things that only the poor care about.
Lem. I don't need to read what you recommend. I'm rich. And I can spell! I therefore obviously have no use for your typos and concern for things that only the poor care about.thats why we need you, you a success! tell us how this happen and will be more impressed with you than have you calling people "deceased".see how easy it is?
it can be lonesome at the top..i feel your pain,
im curius why Montana?maybe your parents are from Montana?Montana is very right wing they say. i dont know cause i never been. they dont play baseball in montana.
maybe they have a double a or triple a team. its not like they are not trying to evolve.
Now if you are from Montana and you are here at Althouse is because you are educated..thats good too.
you allready said you rich so thats allready a given.let me ask you do you really believe the wealthy "rich" to use your word are going to remain wealthy in a socialist state?
Feminists were concerned with women's rights in Afghanistan as well... up until 2002.Really? Synova, offer some evidence, please. It sounds catchy, sure, but it's not true.
its so funny Michael Moore's latest low budget low risk/high reward "documentary" trashes capitalism - and then his first instint it to tell Obama to "earn" his award.its hillarious in its contradiction.its wealthy.
take the term wealthy.do you think if the US as a nation were not wealthy Obama would be able to say "yes we can"?i'm curious.
Lem, you're ok, Dude. Everything's going to be fine. Now, if that nice little Machos guy could just walk you over to the bathroom, lean your head over the side of the toilet, keep you from puking on me... well, everything will work out great. He will tend to your hangover in the morning. That Machos. What a swell guy! He's just like Jay Gatsby!
Post a Comment