Letters to the Editor
-
George Washington
Was just a surveyor, soldier and plantation owner/businessman.
-
Thank you Aycharach
Finally somebody who can think past two party politics.
-
omooex
I have never encountered such a rich vein of willful ignorance and incomprehension in my entire life.
Heh..
Get used to it, the incomprehension will thicken the closer you get to making a point which makes the "serious" commentariat uncomfortable.
Anyone who really and truly seriously challenges orthodoxy gets that sort of treatment, the audience makes little difference, they all react pretty well the same on the left as well as on the right.
If I were you I would expect the ad hominems to start soon and personal insults to commence shortly thereafter.
Oh, and expect to have your personality become a major point of discussion, it keeps the commentariat from having to deal with your ideas if they can psychoanalyze you by proxy and find your psyche fails to meet their high standards.
-
@ omooex
I hate to say this, really I do, but if you voted for Nader in 2004, you've got a not inconsiderable dumb problem of your own.
-
We may be dumb....
And that for the last time, you incredibly DUMB people, is MY POINT...
...but at least we know the difference between a sheep and an ass.
-
Snopes has a great debunking of The Glurge of Springfield
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/lincoln.asp
I had no idea what a "glurge" was but have encountered this myth about "Lincoln's failures" before.
In any case, if you look at Lincoln's accomplishements, he was no more experienced than Obama. Less, probably, and he never saw combat, either.
-
@ Aycharaych
Please don't whine; it's unseemly. Commenters here have debated you often enough on the substance of your one-note symphony, to no avail. Neither you nor omooex are in such exclusive possession of the ugly truths of politics as you suppose. How could you possibly be so beautiful, except in the mirror of your own self-regard?
-
There you have it.
Thank you Aycharach
Finally somebody who can think past two party politics.
-- omooex
People who don't understand the nature of the American political system. If you want to get beyond the fray of two party politics you will have to change the structural and institutional impediments to third parties.
The founders wanted no political parties, trying instead to avoid the factionalism they saw tearing Europe apart. What we have is a result of the law of unintended consequences. It took almost 200 years for Maurice Duverger to figure out why they failed in that. They couldn't foresee everything. They did pretty well, considering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
I just knew it. Nader will cause problems. I don't know how or for whom. He's too old. 74 on the 27th.
-
Question for some involved in the omooex discussion
What does it add to the discussion to use derogative adjectives and comments? When someone misses my point, I believe it is up to me to make my point clearer and if the point is important enough, to remain cool and keep making it. While it may seem fun to insult when not talking to someone face to face, it usually just sidetracks or confuses the discussion. If one truly believes in their point, why not just stick to the facts, reason and logic?
-
Reminiscent of something Atrios posted today
@ Aycharaych
Please don't whine; it's unseemly. Commenters here have debated you often enough on the substance of your one-note symphony, to no avail. Neither you nor omooex are in such exclusive possession of the ugly truths of politics as you suppose. How could you possibly be so beautiful, except in the mirror of your own self-regard?
-- William Timberman
Complicated Things Ususally Don't Have Monocausal Explanations
There's a certain kind of internet dweller who you probably all have come across at some point in your virtual existences. They show up on blogs or comment threads and declare, confidently, that they know "the real reason" for something. Now these people can be annoying for the obvious reason that they tend to be a bit overconfident about the level of their genius. They often sport names like "Truth" or "Truth Teller" or something else suggesting unique access to the great universal knowledge that us mere rubes lack.
But aside from that there's always been something about these people that's bothered me which I could never quite figure out, and I finally got it this morning. The "truth" they share with us, the "real reason," is always a single cause. Other people who think the world might be a bit more complicated than that, and thus discuss other non-competing reasons, are idiots for failing to focus on The One True Reason.
Funny people.
-
@omooex
Whom are you addressing, exactly, when you say "you people"?
-
@L.W.M.
I know the real reason for that behavior.
-
"Finally somebody who can think past two party politics."
And parliamentary systems with proportional representation and multi-party coalition governemnts are even more zoo like. They have their own sets of problems. Which is not to say we can't minimize some of the structural and institutional impediments to access of smaller third and fourth parties. It would be nice to have a broader range of issues to discuss. Like nationalizing the energy industries. Oil companies first.
There is no "true perfection" except in the mind of the utopian idealist. Dangerous people, usually.
-
@ Baldie
Don't talk to me. I'm an evil neocon.
;-)
-
perfect dismissal
"About not wearing an American flag lapel pin, Obama said Republicans have no lock on patriotism.
"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."
*********************************************************
Very effective response! Great post Glen!
-
Please note that Obama does NOT question the patriotism of the GOP
Obama's response is beautiful on more than one level. Not only does it throw the accusation back in the Republicans face, it does so in a way that is not defensive (I don't have to prove my patriotism to YOU) or adoptive of right-wing methods of demonstrating patriotism (I do so wave the flag, wear lapel pins and sing "I'm glad to be an American!"). Furthermore, the throwback does NOT make a similar accusation of lack of patriotism on the part of the GOP even though it may look like it at first blush
Go back and read what Obama says. He never once calls the Republican's patriotism into question. He highlights the mistakes of the GOP on foreign policy. By doing so he suggests that their judgment on questions of patriotism is flawed. But he does NOT follow this up with a "and that is why Republicans are unpatriotic" accusation. Instead, he deftly closes it with a "let's leave it to the American people to decide."
If this is an example of how Obama deals with such future attacks then color me greatly relieved.