smittyoneeach's Journal: Democrats playing the race card? Surely as the sun riseth

George Will:

"Liberalism has a kind of Tourette Syndrome these days," Will said. "It's constantly saying the words racism and racist. There's an old saying, 'If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table.' This is pounding the table. There's a kind of intellectual poverty now. Liberalism hasn't had a new idea since the 1960s, except Obamacare, and the country doesn't like it."
"Foreign policy is a shambles from Russia to Iran to Syria to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he added. "And, the recovery is unprecedentedly bad. So, what do you do? You say anyone who criticizes us is a racist. It's become a joke among young people. You go to a campus where this kind of political correctness reigns and some young person says, 'It looks like it's going to rain.' And, the person next to him looks and says, 'You're a racist.' It's so inappropriate. The constant invocation of this that it is becoming a national mirth."

What does Will mean?:

Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, whose major role is the get House members re-elected, told CNN's "State of the Union" that not all of his Republican colleagues are racist.
"Not all of them, of course not," he said. "But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism."

If Israel isn't dropping specific names/instances, then I don't take him seriously and think he's less than forthright.
In defense of Israel, this is the sort of squishy rhetoric that brought you the ruin of ObamaCare, so at least he's consistent with his party.

And of course the usual sycophants will claim that the URLs go to Unapproved Sites or something. Before you bore me: get a life.

Congratulations, you're halfway there

[damn_registrars]

You found an elected democrat who used the word racism in a sentence. That's better than almost anything you have provided so far. However you insist that this comes up in response to people criticizing President Lawnchair. Can you point to what he said that in response to? The FoxNews link you gave (yes, I actually clicked on it) does not. He was interviewed on CNN state of the union, so you would be better off citing this instead [cnn.com]

I can find the quote in there, but he is not responding to a specif

Foreign policy is a shambles...?

[fustakrakich]

Please! [nytimes.com] Let's try to get all this ideology out of our heads, okay? George Will sounds just like another Pravda writer, may as well be working at the Post!

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Labeling it 'ideology' falls short of refuting the point that our foreign policy is a shambles.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

No, but the numbers point in exactly the opposite direction of such a ridiculous notion. American foreign "policy" is as robust as it ever was. Most people want to buy American, even when it's made in China.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

"Most people want to buy American, even when it's made in China."

I just don't even follow what you mean. Are you saying that iPhones == foreign policy?
I guess in a DIME, sense, you can point to some informational/economic argument there, yeah, but I think we've stretched it a lot.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yes, foreign policy is exactly about trading commodities and making contracts and securing markets, and guess who's still way ahead of the crowd. The ideology is much ado about nothing, it's like taking professional sports seriously, but it is very useful as a motivational tool, That is its purpose, after all. It keeps people occupied... talking gibberish.

Foreign policy is set and judged by the Commerce Department, not the State Department(Damn! I wish I could remember where I just saw that). Its job is to

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Look at the levers of power that people talk about: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic (DIME).
We're taking it in the shorts across the board.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I would like to see the numbers that point to such a conclusion.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Diplomatically, Kerry is an oaf. Or do you think having the Russian ambassador embarrass him over Crimea means anything else? Or Israeli/Palestinian flounder number 3,672?
Informationally. . .least easy to quantify. Your guess is as good as mine here.
Militarily, there was just another mass shooting at Ft. Hood, and Hegel is talking about drawing down end-strength while WW2.5 continues to warm up.
Economically, we continue to flatter ourselves that this is a "recovery".

If you like your Polyanna-ish view,

Re:

[fustakrakich]

If you like all this high drama, you can keep all this high drama. That's all you've showed me so far. To paraphrase: The business of policy is business, and that includes war. Instead you focus on Madison Avenue theatrics. This is what I've always been talking about, you and your blogs are being strung along by mass media (and such a "liberal" one, no less!), and you swallow and regurgitate it like a bulimic starlet. "Embarrass"... Give it a rest. The only people who should be embarrassed are the ones who

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I mean, yeah, it's a farce.
However, that wasn't theatrics that had me rolling in sweat in Afghanistan in 2011.
It is quite real when you're over there in "the suck".
And thanks for nothing with the "bulimic starlet" comment. It's going to take significant time and effort to make any difference. I gather that you're from the "resistance is feudal" school of thought. Got it.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

...that wasn't theatrics that had me rolling in sweat in Afghanistan in 2011.

No, but it is business. The morality angle is the theatrics to sell it to the public, and it worked, I can't argue with success. I am sorry that that you thought your assigned role was for a different movie.

And you have provided no "resistance" to speak of. You are under the belief that a different face in front of the camera is all that's needed. You are retransmitting mass media content. Your "alternatives" are not.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You are under the belief that a different face in front of the camera is all that's needed. You are retransmitting mass media content.

I guess the fact that I have repeatedly argued against changing the names on the doorplates macht nichts. Thanks, man.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

No, you only argued for putting Ted Cruz's and friends name on the doorplate in the same fashion you were pimping McCain and Romney, like that is going to make a bit of difference. The perceived lack of alternatives does not make any of those people look any better.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Subjectively, I never "pimped" McCain & Romney in any sense.
In both cases, I voted against them in the primary.
You can throw out the non-falsifiable proposition that "I didn't do enough to oppose either one", if you want to.
And you can toss out your "Oh, just randomize it all" suggestion, if you like.
*yawn*

Re:

[fustakrakich]

And you voted for them in the election? That's okay. You are perfectly welcome to stick with the same old thing. I just find it amusing when you say you're against something that you're obviously not, while saying I'm for it. I believe this is the definition of the word "projection". And yes you were pimping them as somehow better, that changing the color of the suit will make a difference. And of course dismissing out of hand anything that doesn't suit your lifestyle is as natural as breathing, but it is y

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

while saying I'm for it

I'm not sure where, in this thread, I have asserted any positive allegiance on your end. It's possible that I've done that elsewhere, I suppose, but I'm afraid I don't recall where.

They have proven their "moral turpitude" by taking the same money and pushing the same austerity.

I think the austerity is happening, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Note the smaller portions at restaurants.

That does not require me to supply you with "alternatives". I am simply pointing to the sign that says "bridge out".

This is slashdot. Nobody is ever required to do anything at all here.

Ignore at your own peril, and continue to play the victim card. The system cannot work without a submissive, non-thinking crowd who believe they have no alternative.

I'm just kind of chuckling here at "I am simply pointing to the sign that says 'bridge out'" followed by "crowd who believe they have no alterna

Re:

[fustakrakich]

At a sufficiently high level of abstraction... we are turtles and trees are lakes... and the crap you are swimming in is your own tailing pond that needs to be contained a bit better than it has been. Heh, and your evil twin d_r, identical stones you two are, he just needs more time in the rock tumbler.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

evil twin d_r, identical stones you two are

It took me a while to be mostly satisfied that you and he are not the part of the same sock puppet collection.
After a while though, he seemed more nutter, while you come off as a purely cynical play.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Cynical?! How can natural and normal behavior be described as cynical? It's just something we have to live through for the time being. I don't get it. Where is the cynicism? There's no cynicism, no "guilt", only acknowledgement, that it is we... who will turn the planet into the Love Boat... or the Titanic...

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I find it cynical that you both (a) acknowledge the issues, and (b) attack any attempt to do anything different as "more of same".

Re:

[fustakrakich]

That's because your attempts so far are just "more of the same". The only thing you want to replace are the actors, the puppets, the personality... You only faintly address the symptoms without acknowledging the underlying motivation. Maybe they don't teach those things in Masters Degree School. It's like knowing the mechanics without knowing the principles. You simply don't accept your place in nature. I carry no cynicism whatsoever. I don't cynically support the things I preach against, and I sure don't p

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The underlying motivation is that all of the actors happen to be human.
The 1787 Constitution was a novel approach to minimizing the federal effects, until the Wilson era.

bad example

[Bill Dog]

'It looks like it's going to rain.'

It's safe to assume that he was instead saying "reign", and was referring to the white community. UNBELIEVABLY racist!

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Actually, it was "Rainn", as in Wilson. Clearly a subtle reference to "The Office".