PDA

View Full Version : The Neocons Lose Their S*** Over Rand Paul




jct74
04-15-2014, 03:37 PM
The Neocons Lose Their Shit Over Rand Paul

by Andrew Sullivan
APR 15 2014 @ 4:35PM

And so we begin to get into – finally! – a real debate about foreign policy within the GOP. With Ron Paul, the neocon stranglehold on Republican foreign policy was easily maintained. With Rand Paul? Not so much. And so we have three sallies against him this week from three classic sources: Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin. Bret Stephens is a very gifted writer, and his cri de coeur today is quite something.

So let me concede up-front: I fully agree with Stephens that Paul’s theory that Dick Cheney decided to invade Iraq in order to burnish the bottom line of Halliburton is foolish as well as stupid. Occam’s razor does all the work. We know that in the wake of 9/11, Cheney panicked. He was terrified of another attack and his fetid imagination ran wild. One way in which he could manage to recover was by seizing the initiative – and Iraq was sitting right there, as it had been for years. Along with instituting torture – another panic move – Cheney’s pursuit of war needed no underhand motive. And it is asinine and completely fruitless to make unprovable slurs.

But on containing Iran’s potential nuclear capacity? Paul is perfectly sane, and in line with US strategy against far more formidable nuclear adversaries during the Cold War. If he is completely out of the mainstream so was George Kennan and every president from Truman to Reagan. To describe the strategy that won the Cold War as somehow extremist is simply bizarre. Here’s Paul’s basic position:

...

read more:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/15/the-neocons-lose-their-shit-over-rand-paul/

Brett85
04-15-2014, 03:42 PM
The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

acptulsa
04-15-2014, 03:44 PM
Yeah, because Cheney is so emotional that he could set up that whole yellowcake uranium line of crap and shove it down the throats of a whole nation during one simple little panic attack.


The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

He takes the very reasonable position that we should save our missiles and use them against someone who actually attacks us. Is that not enough to make a neocon's blood boil?

People like Rand Paul could take all the fun out of owning Raytheon stock. Can't have that.

thoughtomator
04-15-2014, 03:45 PM
The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

As Ron explained in his reasons for not cutting all entitlements off immediately, the transition is a lot smoother when you do it bit by bit. Same applies to foreign policy, the Empire is not going to be reversed overnight.

TheGrinch
04-15-2014, 03:48 PM
Occam’s razor does all the work

Indeed it does. Cheney profited directly from the war effort.

I can't stand people trying to use that damn razor to try to explain human behavior, where the simplest explanation is never the one that accounts for alterior motives from complex beings who do not simply operate like simple animals, but instead as rational actors with differing interests.... But to use it to come to an equally unprovable conclusion? Piss poor logic on display there.

They fabricated lies to go to war, Cheney profitted. Why should I give a damn if their intentions were "noble" (not that I think that going to war and killing millions, leaving behind a radiation-filled hell-hole is ever moral, but when based on lies to go to it needlessly, there is no possible moral justification).

Brett85
04-15-2014, 03:49 PM
As Ron explained in his reasons for not cutting all entitlements off immediately, the transition is a lot smoother when you do it bit by bit. Same applies to foreign policy, the Empire is not going to be reversed overnight.

I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

Occam's Banana
04-15-2014, 04:16 PM
I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

They don't have to be the same in order to terrify the neocons. They just have to be "not neoconnish" ...

TheGrinch
04-15-2014, 04:21 PM
They don't have to be the same in order to terrify the neocons. They just have to be "not neoconnish" ...

Exactly, that and they're terrified that his principles can't be bought off, even if he is playing the game or willing to make compromises for other reasons besides self-benefit.

They know that rhetoric is shallow. What they're concerned about is that even though his rhetoric might be as moderate as pre-9/11 Bush, they'll get completely oopposite results when they start beating the wardrum.

People always want to point to political differences, while not realizing that the establishment's biggest fear about Rand is the same they had with Ron. He can't be bought off (as far as we and probably they can tell). Rhetoric doesn't matter if they know the person doesn't have integrity. That's what scares the shit out of them about Rand, IMO, is he does.

thoughtomator
04-15-2014, 04:37 PM
I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

Either one spells the end of their dreams of global domination - under their benevolent control, of course.

ObiRandKenobi
04-15-2014, 04:41 PM
uh for like 12 years a bunch of liberals screamed halliburton conspiracy and iraq. only now that there's video of rand implying it does he see fit to denounce this as "dumb"

the last decade oh that's cool

supermario21
04-15-2014, 05:37 PM
I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.


I think it's because they view Rand as much more of a threat to win the nomination. And Ron's views are becoming more prominent within the GOP, so they're doing everything they can to destroy even a foreign policy moderate.

Brian4Liberty
04-15-2014, 06:07 PM
So let me concede up-front: I fully agree with Stephens that Paul’s theory that Dick Cheney decided to invade Iraq in order to burnish the bottom line of Halliburton is foolish as well as stupid. Occam’s razor does all the work. We know that in the wake of 9/11, Cheney panicked. He was terrified of another attack and his fetid imagination ran wild. One way in which he could manage to recover was by seizing the initiative – and Iraq was sitting right there, as it had been for years. Along with instituting torture – another panic move – Cheney’s pursuit of war needed no underhand motive. And it is asinine and completely fruitless to make unprovable slurs.

Let me concede this upfront, that Andrew Sullivan is being a moronic simpleton, if he insists on taking complex situations with multiple motivations, and attacking all but his one, single, preferred explanation. Perhaps one motivation and one single idea is all that his brain can comprehend at one time? Perhaps he thinks that Cheney is only capable of one thought (or motivation) at a time?

Everything is a nail to a hammer, and Cheney was CEO of Hammerburton Inc.

anaconda
04-15-2014, 06:40 PM
When I click to the article it doesn't actually say who wrote it. Is it, in fact, Andrew Sullivan?

anaconda
04-15-2014, 06:42 PM
Jennifer Rubin is completely unhinged and writes like a high schooler at best. Go visit her site and see just how many hit pieces she writes on Rand. I think she may have some mental issues. I think it's possible.

Dianne
04-15-2014, 06:47 PM
Yeah, because Cheney is so emotional that he could set up that whole yellowcake uranium line of crap and shove it down the throats of a whole nation during one simple little panic attack.



He takes the very reasonable position that we should save our missiles and use them against someone who actually attacks us. Is that not enough to make a neocon's blood boil?

People like Rand Paul could take all the fun out of owning Raytheon stock. Can't have that.

In a fair and honest republic, Cheney should locked up for the rest of his life, and the IRS should be sending his bimbo daughter bills for his tax evasion... Not in a perfect world, so all we can do is pray that Lord Jesus himself will strike that bastard from this world.

Inkblots
04-15-2014, 06:57 PM
When I click to the article it doesn't actually say who wrote it. Is it, in fact, Andrew Sullivan?

He's long been criticized for not using bylines for that very reason. I seem to recall a scandal a few years back regarding his assistants writing posts that people presumed were his work. I think that was maybe why he was kicked off the Atlantic?

amy31416
04-15-2014, 08:38 PM
Let me concede this upfront, that Andrew Sullivan is being a moronic simpleton, if he insists on taking complex situations with multiple motivations, and attacking all but his one, single, preferred explanation. Perhaps one motivation and one single idea is all that his brain can comprehend at one time? Perhaps he thinks that Cheney is only capable of one thought (or motivation) at a time?

Everything is a nail to a hammer, and Cheney was CEO of Hammerburton Inc.

Well, whoever wrote this must also not be familiar with PNAC and Cheney's involvement in it. He had multiple reasons to invade Iraq, all of them beneficial to himself and his family/friends/power aspirations/bottom line.

T.hill
04-15-2014, 08:40 PM
I'm not complaining. I just don't understand why the neocons seem to be as terrified of Rand's foreign policy as they were of Ron's. I don't really view them as being the same.

I do, I just see it as pragmatic non-interventionism, making pragmatic arguments to not militarily intervene in global affairs on a case by case basis is still non-interventionism.

T.hill
04-15-2014, 08:47 PM
Rand identifies himself as a realist, he's really a defensive-realist, which by itself is already similar to non-interventionism. His unique variation of defensive-realism is essentially pragmatic non-interventionism.

Brett85
04-15-2014, 08:50 PM
I do, I just see it as pragmatic non-interventionism, making pragmatic arguments to not militarily intervene in global affairs on a case by case basis is still non-interventionism.

I would call it selective intervention or limited intervention. It's better than the full fledged intervention that the Republican establishment supports.

jtstellar
04-15-2014, 08:55 PM
I would call it selective intervention or limited intervention. It's better than the full fledged intervention that the Republican establishment supports.

and whose internal political affairs has he proposed to selectively intervene

Brett85
04-15-2014, 09:18 PM
and whose internal political affairs has he proposed to selectively intervene

Iran and other countries. I view sanctions as a form of intervention.

anaconda
04-16-2014, 04:09 AM
He's long been criticized for not using bylines for that very reason. I seem to recall a scandal a few years back regarding his assistants writing posts that people presumed were his work. I think that was maybe why he was kicked off the Atlantic?

Interesting. Good to know.

LibertyEagle
04-16-2014, 04:35 AM
I totally agree with everyone who said Sullivan was naive, to put it nicely, about what he said about Cheney, but in my opinion, it would be a big mistake for us to focus on that issue when we comment about this article around the net. The big thing is about the neocons hating anyone that they believe will slow down their effort for more war. I think that because it would be too easy to get drawn off into discussions about 9-11 and helping the naysayers hang some unneeded garbage around Rand's neck, by association. You know how they work.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 04:52 AM
The funny thing is that the neocons absolutely hate Rand, and from my perspective he's already basically just a moderate on foreign policy issues. He just takes a more middle position.

If you look at the major FP views moving from left to right it looks like this:

Imperialism --> Wilsonian --> Hamiltonian --> Jacksonian --> Jeffersonian --> Isolationism

Hitler & Stalin were imperialists. Switzerland & N Korea are the closest we have to isolationism today.

Ron was a classic example of a Jeffersonian, Rand is just to the left of him straddling the Jacksonian & Jeffersonian positions depending on the issue (as Rand says he is a realist on FP). Neo-cons are Wilsonian by definition which is far to the left on the spectrum from Rand, which is why they have so many problems with him.

Vanguard101
04-16-2014, 07:01 AM
I'm pretty sure Rand and Ron's foreign policy are the same. The only difference is Rand's policy is what actually could happen and Ron's is something that would take decades or it doesn't occur.

Cutlerzzz
04-16-2014, 08:16 AM
Neither North Korea nor Switzerland are close to isolationist. Switzerland trades with virtually everyone and is very influential in-spite of its size. North Korea is one of the most aggressive states in the world and doesn't directly intervene elsewhere anymore because they are boxed in by far more powerful states.

Victor Grey
04-16-2014, 08:17 AM
I do, I just see it as pragmatic non-interventionism, making pragmatic arguments to not militarily intervene in global affairs on a case by case basis is still non-interventionism.

I find that non-interventionism is the practical approach in most all cases.

In ways, neoconservatives are less intelligent in their approach, than even history's largest expansive empires.
Hell even the Romans knew that if two sides who aren't your friends are fighting one another, you don't go into it until one wins.
Modern neocons lived back then, they'd of saw the Numidians, mercenaries, and Hannibal's family fighting, and somehow arrive to a demand to save Carthage.

Look at how they clamored for intervention in Syria.

But that isn't the real goal for them. It isn't practicality. A large faction of Neocons, right alongside fellow factions of these modern versions of simple shield biting barbarians desperate for fight, and a group of cowards fearful of everything, aren't "pro-america" as much they are pro making money from war; period.

Brian4Liberty
04-16-2014, 09:33 AM
I totally agree with everyone who said Sullivan was naive, to put it nicely, about what he said about Cheney, but in my opinion, it would be a big mistake for us to focus on that issue when we comment about this article around the net. The big thing is about the neocons hating anyone that they believe will slow down their effort for more war. I think that because it would be too easy to get drawn off into discussions about 9-11 and helping the naysayers hang some unneeded garbage around Rand's neck, by association. You know how they work.

Yeah, I was hesitant to call out Sullivan for that, as it wasn't really the main point of the article. It seemed to be thrown in there as a peace offering to neoconservatives before some criticism. But an attack is an attack, and it deserved to be shown for it's lack of reasoning or common sense.

The article itself was more about identifying some of the usual neoconservative media operatives, and their constant (costly and erroneous) war mongering agenda: "And so we have three sallies against him this week from three classic sources: Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin."

Superfly
04-16-2014, 10:21 AM
Yeah, I was hesitant to call out Sullivan for that, as it wasn't really the main point of the article. It seemed to be thrown in there as a peace offering to neoconservatives before some criticism. But an attack is an attack, and it deserved to be shown for it's lack of reasoning or common sense.

The article itself was more about identifying some of the usual neoconservative media operatives, and their constant (costly and erroneous) war mongering agenda: "And so we have three sallies against him this week from three classic sources: Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin."

I agree with this. The Iraq War would not have been any better had Cheney's motives been pure...the point is that it was a disastrous war that cost many times more than we were told it would, left the region less stable than before, and gave Al-Queda a stronger foothold in Iraq than at any time before.

To point out these factual issues is to stir up the beehive of war hysteria among the Neocons. The criticism of Rand over his Cheney comments are only a smokescreen to distract from the real arguments to be had; mainly that an aggressive foreign policy is a terrible, terrible thing and there are countless examples of that being the case. Cheney could have been as pure as the fresh winter's snow and the Neocons would have just attacked Rand for something else relating to his comments. God forbid they address that actual issues without throwing in the easy (and stupid) buzzword of "isolationism".

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
04-16-2014, 02:32 PM
I view sanctions as a form of intervention.

Which sanctions, exactly, have "intervened" in another nation's internal affairs, and how? Please be specific. Thanks.

Hyperion
04-16-2014, 04:17 PM
Last night Mark Levin was going nuts about foreign policy. He was saying you don't have to be a neocon or a non-interventionist, yet he never mentioned a situation in which the US should actually show restraint. Typical fearmongering about Iran and Russia etc.

It's really disgusting how neocons see a world in which no principles apply to them but can't stand when other nations aggressively act in their self interest. Why are they so unable to see the obvious contradiction in this?

RonPaulFanInGA
04-16-2014, 04:23 PM
These old, discredited neoconservative writers are going to have to learn the hard way that it's a new day in America, and it is they who are outside the current mainstream of America. They seem to be under the impression that it's still their heydays of 2003-2005. Americans are sick of war.

Quark
04-16-2014, 04:57 PM
If you look at the major FP views moving from left to right it looks like this:

Imperialism --> Wilsonian --> Hamiltonian --> Jacksonian --> Jeffersonian --> Isolationism

Hitler & Stalin were imperialists. Switzerland & N Korea are the closest we have to isolationism today.

Ron was a classic example of a Jeffersonian, Rand is just to the left of him straddling the Jacksonian & Jeffersonian positions depending on the issue (as Rand says he is a realist on FP). Neo-cons are Wilsonian by definition which is far to the left on the spectrum from Rand, which is why they have so many problems with him.

Interesting spectrum. I've heard of it before, but never delved into the details. What are key differences between Jackson's and Jefferson's views? I tried looking up, but the differences seem to be a matter of application, and I can't find the basic principles.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 06:32 PM
Interesting spectrum. I've heard of it before, but never delved into the details. What are key differences between Jackson's and Jefferson's views? I tried looking up, but the differences seem to be a matter of application, and I can't find the basic principles.

In short, I would say that a Jeffersonian is a strict non-interventionist, where a Jacksonian supports limited intervention where American interests (and possibly the interests of our allies) are at risk.

I think it is safe to say that if Canada was invaded by the Russians, Jeffersonians would be apprehensive to go to war until the Ruskies were knocking on Minnesota's back door, where the Jacksonians would be right there from the get go, kick ass and come home. By contrast, Hamiltonians would be concerned about the humanitarian effects of the war, go to the UN for permission, and post conflict have our troops stationed in Canada for years rebuilding roads and handing out care packages of poutine and Kraft dinners. Wilsonians would follow much of the same path as the Hamiltonians, but doing so for the sake of democracy; post conflict our troops would be in Canada for decades rebuilding the nation and we'd set up a puppet leader where we could pull the strings.

And this from an article summarizing the terms:

Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against international agreements, rather than for them.

The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

Cleaner44
04-16-2014, 06:51 PM
The neocon argument doesn't work. Just ask Michele Bachmann how her attempt to sell her "Iran is going to nuke us all!" hysteria worked out.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 07:04 PM
The neocon argument doesn't work. Just ask Michele Bachmann how her attempt to sell her "Iran is going to nuke us all!" hysteria worked out.

Bachmann is not a neo-conservative. At worst, I would say she holds an aggressive Jacksonian position, but only in regards to Islamic terrorism. She's even called for spending cuts in the Defense Dept (an anathema to neo-cons). Her positions on domestic issues are also at odds with neo-cons.

Just for comparison sake, her JBS lifetime score is 80% where Peter King (a textbook neo-con) is at 44%. (JBS includes FP in their scorecard). Her Freedomworks score (which is strictly domestic policy) is 93% where King's is 56%.

HVACTech
04-16-2014, 07:34 PM
[QUOTE=acptulsa;5493778]Yeah, because Cheney is so emotional that he could set up that whole yellowcake uranium line of crap and shove it down the throats of a whole nation during one simple little panic attack.

Dick has panic attacks?

somehow, there is just something inherently wrong. with a Dick having a panic attack.

NIU Students for Liberty
04-16-2014, 07:37 PM
Which sanctions, exactly, have "intervened" in another nation's internal affairs, and how? Please be specific. Thanks.

How is restricting access to goods and services by force NOT intervening? It's common sense.

Danke
04-16-2014, 07:38 PM
Bachmann is not a neo-conservative. At worst, I would say she holds an aggressive Jacksonian position, but only in regards to Islamic terrorism. She's even called for spending cuts in the Defense Dept (an anathema to neo-cons). Her positions on domestic issues are also at odds with neo-cons.

Just for comparison sake, her JBS lifetime score is 80% where Peter King (a textbook neo-con) is at 44%. (JBS includes FP in their scorecard). Her Freedomworks score (which is strictly domestic policy) is 93% where King's is 56%.

She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

JBS rating means nothing.

jj-
04-16-2014, 07:44 PM
She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

Few crimes are worse, if any.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 07:48 PM
She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

JBS rating means nothing.

Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

Danke
04-16-2014, 07:59 PM
Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

Did I mention she was a neo-con?
Where does the JBS rating reference neo-con rating?

menciusmoldbug
04-16-2014, 08:00 PM
Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptLouAlbano again.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 08:07 PM
Did I mention she was a neo-con?
Where does the JBS rating reference neo-con rating?

You quoted a post where I was saying how she is not a neo-con

And again the JBS reference is to show a comparison between Bachmann and King.

Danke
04-16-2014, 08:08 PM
You quoted a post where I was saying how she is not a neo-con

And again the JBS reference is to show a comparison between Bachmann and King.

Link?

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 08:11 PM
[QUOTE=Danke;5495346]Link?[/QUOTEhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

HVACTech
04-16-2014, 08:12 PM
She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

JBS rating means nothing.

methinks this will change your mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32EZgesi7b4

Danke
04-16-2014, 08:18 PM
[QUOTE=Danke;5495346]Link?[/QUOTEhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

I see a rating, but I guess i missed the neo-con ratings, and she keeps voting for the Patriot act in various bills.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 08:34 PM
I see a rating, but I guess i missed the neo-con ratings

There aren't "neo-con ratings". But when you compare the votes of someone who is a textbook neo-con with others, you can use that data for comparison sake. For example if you go back historically and look at Ron Paul's votes versus other congressmen, you can compare a libertarian position to other positions.


and she keeps voting for the Patriot act in various bills.

I am beginning to think you have no idea was a neo-con is then. Voting for the Patriot Act does not mean one is a neo-con.

Neo-conservatives hold to a Wilsonian foreign policy position and domestically they support the status quo as opposed to supporting the reduction in the size of domestic programs and the welfare state. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney - those are your neo-cons. Voting for the Patriot Act or saying the US is a friend of Israel does not make one a neo-con.

It's not as simple as everyone who is not a non-interventionist is therefore a neo-con. As noted above a Jacksonian supports limited interventionism, but is not on par with a Wilsonian who supports intervention on the world stage, spreading democracy, nation building and being the policeman of the world.

Victor Grey
04-16-2014, 08:37 PM
Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

Well whether she's an ideological neo-con or not, she is one of those hysterical scaredy-people I was talking about, that make up a portion of their political base.

Those and these simple minded (imho) pro-war, war loving nuts you run across are perfect bedfellows.

The point you're making is true, it's not intellectually perfect to call her a neo-con. As far as I understand at least. It is also true that many, I would say at least, far worse and inaccurate examples of someone labeling something as neo-con do exist. (some examples I've seen of people claiming a thing or person as neoconservative I've experienced, I'd be happy to see someone point out as a weak claim.) Many instances of using the neo-con label can be far more off the mark than this one. Neo-con become a bit of an empty phrase and curse word, through it's being far to vague and inaccurate in use. I can see why you'd not like that. I don't either to an extent.

But, it is hard to distinguish nor to care for the meaningful difference here (Bachmann) from a neo-con in practice, when the results of holding either motivation or line of thought are pretty much the same.

In at least in that way, I don't see it as being equal in comparison to those who can't or else intentionally won't distinguish between non-intervention and isolationism as policies. Those two ideas have very different results when put into actual practice. I firmly believe that so at least.

If a person however wants to invade Iran, it really doesn't seem to matter much whether that is because they perpetually soil their drawers, want to ride a glory bomb like Major Kong, or are doing it to raise their stock investment's values or to increase production orders.
They all flock together, are for the same policies and almost all of them will vote the same.

They're still for invading Iran.

Danke
04-16-2014, 08:40 PM
There aren't "neo-con ratings". But when you compare the votes of someone who is a textbook neo-con with others, you can use that data for comparison sake. For example if you go back historically and look at Ron Paul's votes versus other congressmen, you can compare a libertarian position to other positions.



I am beginning to think you have no idea was a neo-con is then. Voting for the Patriot Act does not mean one is a neo-con.

Neo-conservatives hold to a Wilsonian foreign policy position and domestically they support the status quo as opposed to supporting the reduction in the size of domestic programs and the welfare state. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney - those are your neo-cons. Voting for the Patriot Act or saying the US is a friend of Israel does not make one a neo-con.

It's not as simple as everyone who is not a non-interventionist is therefore a neo-con. As noted above a Jacksonian supports limited interventionism, but is not on par with a Wilsonian who supports intervention on the world stage, spreading democracy, nation building and being the policeman of the world.

I never said she was a neo-con. Labels don't mean much to me.

She votes terribly. She acts terribly. Her record shows this. So again 80% JSB approval rating is meaningless.

CaptLouAlbano
04-16-2014, 08:54 PM
I never said she was a neo-con. Labels don't mean much to me.

She votes terribly. She acts terribly. Her record shows this. So again 80% JSB approval rating is meaningless.

I'm not a fan of her either. That being said, her votes on major domestic policy have been pretty good. There are far worse out there for sure. For example, her predecessor in the House, Mark Kennedy was a supporter of big government programs.

menciusmoldbug
04-16-2014, 09:21 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptLouAlbano again.


lmao, Danke neg-repped this post with the following comment: "Where was neo-con mentioned?"


The neocon argument doesn't work. Just ask Michele Bachmann how her attempt to sell her "Iran is going to nuke us all!" hysteria worked out.


Bachmann is not a neo-conservative. At worst, I would say she holds an aggressive Jacksonian position, but only in regards to Islamic terrorism. She's even called for spending cuts in the Defense Dept (an anathema to neo-cons). Her positions on domestic issues are also at odds with neo-cons.

Just for comparison sake, her JBS lifetime score is 80% where Peter King (a textbook neo-con) is at 44%. (JBS includes FP in their scorecard). Her Freedomworks score (which is strictly domestic policy) is 93% where King's is 56%.

Danke responds to these posts, explicitly discussing whether or not Bachmann is a neo-con, with:


She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.


JBS rating means nothing.

The clear implication here being that Bachmann IS a neo-con. Otherwise, why enter the discussion simply to provide a non-sequitur attack on Bachmann? In retrospect, it seems clear that Danke was NOT disagreeing with CLA's claim that Bachmann's not a neo-con, but was making a silly and irrelevant claim that she is somehow simply bad because of a job she once held. Nevertheless, CLA's reply is perfectly sensible if one makes the assumption that no-one would bother entering the discussion to produce a non-sequitur:


Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

+1 for promoting intellectual honesty

Danke
04-16-2014, 09:33 PM
lmao, Danke neg-repped this post with the following comment: "Where was neo-con mentioned?"





Danke responds to these posts, explicitly discussing whether or not Bachmann is a neo-con, with:



The clear implication here being that Bachmann IS a neo-con. Otherwise, why enter the discussion simply to provide a non-sequitur attack on Bachmann? In retrospect, it seems clear that Danke was NOT disagreeing with CLA's claim that Bachmann's not a neo-con, but was making a silly and irrelevant claim that she is somehow simply bad because of a job she once held. Nevertheless, CLA's reply is perfectly sensible if one makes the assumption that no-one would bother entering the discussion to produce a non-sequitur:



+1 for promoting intellectual honesty

you are a silly person.

She is not a liberty minded person. Her past is relevant.

Are we to excuse Cheney, Rumsfeld, Holder, etc. now too if they occasionally vote or act favorably?

T.hill
04-16-2014, 09:36 PM
In short, I would say that a Jeffersonian is a strict non-interventionist, where a Jacksonian supports limited intervention where American interests (and possibly the interests of our allies) are at risk.

I think it is safe to say that if Canada was invaded by the Russians, Jeffersonians would be apprehensive to go to war until the Ruskies were knocking on Minnesota's back door, where the Jacksonians would be right there from the get go, kick ass and come home. By contrast, Hamiltonians would be concerned about the humanitarian effects of the war, go to the UN for permission, and post conflict have our troops stationed in Canada for years rebuilding roads and handing out care packages of poutine and Kraft dinners. Wilsonians would follow much of the same path as the Hamiltonians, but doing so for the sake of democracy; post conflict our troops would be in Canada for decades rebuilding the nation and we'd set up a puppet leader where we could pull the strings.

And this from an article summarizing the terms:

Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against international agreements, rather than for them.

The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

The issues where Rand leans more towards a Jacksonian position I think is still done in pursuant to a general Jeffersonian platform. That is in specific situations where he makes a subjective value judgment that will lead to less intervention practically, such as certain sanctions, which he would vote for if he were lead to believe it would delay a full-out invasion.

I would simply reject all forms of intervention and limitations on human interaction, however I can respect it as an action-oriented directive towards non-interventionism.

angelatc
04-16-2014, 09:43 PM
Wait - how and why did we go from discussing Sully's spin on Rand Paul to fighting about how to label Bachmann?

amy31416
04-16-2014, 09:51 PM
Wait - how and why did we go from discussing Sully's spin on Rand Paul to fighting about how to label Bachmann?

You new here? :D

Feeding the Abscess
04-16-2014, 09:56 PM
There aren't "neo-con ratings". But when you compare the votes of someone who is a textbook neo-con with others, you can use that data for comparison sake. For example if you go back historically and look at Ron Paul's votes versus other congressmen, you can compare a libertarian position to other positions.



I am beginning to think you have no idea was a neo-con is then. Voting for the Patriot Act does not mean one is a neo-con.

Neo-conservatives hold to a Wilsonian foreign policy position and domestically they support the status quo as opposed to supporting the reduction in the size of domestic programs and the welfare state. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney - those are your neo-cons. Voting for the Patriot Act or saying the US is a friend of Israel does not make one a neo-con.

It's not as simple as everyone who is not a non-interventionist is therefore a neo-con. As noted above a Jacksonian supports limited interventionism, but is not on par with a Wilsonian who supports intervention on the world stage, spreading democracy, nation building and being the policeman of the world.

Neocons care about foreign policy and world domination, and will shift their positions in order to get into power and administer that vision. With influences like Strauss, Trotsky, and Machiavelli, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Don't conflate stated positions for desired objectives. Bachmann may not be a neocon (she's probably a dominionist or evangelical zionist), but Kelly Ayotte, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton certainly are.

anaconda
04-16-2014, 10:16 PM
It's really disgusting how neocons see a world in which no principles apply to them but can't stand when other nations aggressively act in their self interest. Why are they so unable to see the obvious contradiction in this?

I'm sure they see the contradiction. They just don't want the average voter to see it.

menciusmoldbug
04-16-2014, 10:32 PM
you are a silly person.

She is not a liberty minded person. Her past is relevant.

Are we to excuse Cheney, Rumsfeld, Holder, etc. now too if they occasionally vote or act favorably?

You are a simple-minded person. There are more than two political ideologies. To simply label individuals as either "liberty minded" or "not liberty minded" misses an enormous amount of nuance that exists and should be taken into account when evaluating various pols relative to one another. Any method that fails to recognize a difference between Michele Bachmann, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder, and Joseph Stalin will produce reliably inferior results to one that successfully identifies the fact that I have listed them in order from least to most odious. To say that Michele Bachmann agrees with me more than Joseph Stalin does is not to excuse or defend her support for the Patriot Act or her war-mongering on Iran - it is simply to acknowledge that she is not wrong about everything, a distinction that matters quite a bit when voting in a first-past-the-post election. If offered a choice between Bachmann and Stalin, I would support Bachmann with enthusiasm every single time - and so should you.

Danke
04-16-2014, 10:41 PM
You are a simple-minded person. There are more than two political ideologies. To simply label individuals as either "liberty minded" or "not liberty minded" misses an enormous amount of nuance that exists and should be taken into account when evaluating various pols relative to one another. Any method that fails to recognize a difference between Michele Bachmann, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder, and Joseph Stalin will produce reliably inferior results to one that successfully identifies the fact that I have listed them in order from least to most odious. To say that Michele Bachmann agrees with me more than Joseph Stalin does is not to excuse or defend her support for the Patriot Act or her war-mongering on Iran - it is simply to acknowledge that she is not wrong about everything, a distinction that matters quite a bit when voting in a first-past-the-post election. If offered a choice between Bachmann and Stalin, I would support Bachmann with enthusiasm every single time - and so should you.

No I really didn't mean silly. You are an idiot.

She not only supported, but actively participated in the oppressive scam via her job as an IRS prosecutor. Locking people up for victimless "crimes" against the state. That is probably just about the furthest one can get from the liberty movement.

menciusmoldbug
04-16-2014, 10:58 PM
No I really didn't mean silly. You are an idiot.

You are entitled to your opinion. Every objective evaluation of my intelligence suggests that I'm way over on the right side of the bell curve, though, so this astonishingly inaccurate assessment of my critical thinking skills strongly suggests (in an entertainingly ironic fashion) that you're more likely to be (relatively) mentally handicapped than me. Pro Tip: Turn off the angry/hateful/cranky part of your brain when disagreeing with people and you'll be more likely to arrive at correct conclusions.


She not only supported, but actively participated in the oppressive scam via her job as an IRS prosecutor. Locking people up for victimless "crimes" against the state. That is probably just about the furthest one can get from the liberty movement.

Your ignorance of history is frightening. To equate employment as an IRS prosecutor with the Holodomor is a strong sign of moral blindness, imo. Another word for moral blindness is "evil."

http://www.worldtruth.org/file/pic/photo/2014/01/13719aae08b901d84ac8d8d474132575_1024.jpg

http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Holodomor.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UJTYEqNOMYo/T7H9tV7StmI/AAAAAAAADVY/2NyOueHk8Aw/s640/holodomor-3.jpg


[mod note: graphic images un-imbedded]

TheGrinch
04-16-2014, 11:47 PM
You are a simple-minded person. There are more than two political ideologies. To simply label individuals as either "liberty minded" or "not liberty minded" misses an enormous amount of nuance that exists and should be taken into account when evaluating various pols relative to one another. Any method that fails to recognize a difference between Michele Bachmann, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder, and Joseph Stalin will produce reliably inferior results to one that successfully identifies the fact that I have listed them in order from least to most odious. To say that Michele Bachmann agrees with me more than Joseph Stalin does is not to excuse or defend her support for the Patriot Act or her war-mongering on Iran - it is simply to acknowledge that she is not wrong about everything, a distinction that matters quite a bit when voting in a first-past-the-post election. If offered a choice between Bachmann and Stalin, I would support Bachmann with enthusiasm every single time - and so should you.

You really think we're here to choose between the "lesser of two evils" that is the direct catalyst to us getting the crappy corrupt representatives we deserve?

You'll find that we're not impressed with those who try to kiss our asses with libertarian-minded votes. Integrity matters just as much to us, and Bachmann is a hack. You're not going to convince anyone here, so you can save yourself the effort.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 12:38 AM
You really think we're here to choose between the "lesser of two evils" that is the direct catalyst to us getting the crappy corrupt representatives we deserve?

I recognize that the vast majority of hominids are philosophically unsophisticated and predisposed towards black-and-white judgments that only poorly reflect the underlying reality they face. My aim is not to persuade those whose minds are incapable of perceiving finer gradients that they ought to (or ought to try, even), but instead to simply speak the truth and thereby encourage those who are capable of improving their understanding to do so.

The causes of the "crappy corrupt representatives" you complain about are more myriad than you suppose, and the mere tactic of refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils will not produce the outcome(s) you seek. In a first-past-the-post system of electoral democracy, a rational actor whose goal is to maximize his or her impact will engage in exactly this sort of behavior on a regular basis. The problem is not this willingness (exhibited by so many citizens) to play the game by the rules as they have been laid out - the problem is that the rules themselves are rigged to reliably produce poor governance. The solution is not to take one's ball and go home - this will have no impact whatsoever on the outcome - the solution is to try and change the rules of the game. The belief that attempting to change the rules of a game requires refusing to play it in the meantime is simply an intellectual mistake.


You'll find that we're not impressed with those who try to kiss our asses with libertarian-minded votes.

You'll find that you ought to be. The motivations behind a vote change not one whit of its effect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI


Integrity matters just as much to us, and Bachmann is a hack. You're not going to convince anyone here, so you can save yourself the effort.

At no point have I or would I attempt to convince you or anyone else that Bachmann is anything but a hack. Regardless of her hack status or lack of integrity, however, I would strongly prefer her to Peter King, a man of conviction and integrity who simply happens to be an open and honest advocate of just about everything you and I hate in the realms of foreign policy and government surveillance. If integrity matters just as much to you as how a person votes, then I can only say that I think you are making a terrible mistake and leave it at that.

TheGrinch
04-17-2014, 08:42 AM
I recognize that the vast majority of hominids are philosophically unsophisticated and predisposed towards black-and-white judgments that only poorly reflect the underlying reality they face. My aim is not to persuade those whose minds are incapable of perceiving finer gradients that they ought to (or ought to try, even), but instead to simply speak the truth and thereby encourage those who are capable of improving their understanding to do so.

The causes of the "crappy corrupt representatives" you complain about are more myriad than you suppose, and the mere tactic of refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils will not produce the outcome(s) you seek. In a first-past-the-post system of electoral democracy, a rational actor whose goal is to maximize his or her impact will engage in exactly this sort of behavior on a regular basis. The problem is not this willingness (exhibited by so many citizens) to play the game by the rules as they have been laid out - the problem is that the rules themselves are rigged to reliably produce poor governance. The solution is not to take one's ball and go home - this will have no impact whatsoever on the outcome - the solution is to try and change the rules of the game. The belief that attempting to change the rules of a game requires refusing to play it in the meantime is simply an intellectual mistake.



You'll find that you ought to be. The motivations behind a vote change not one whit of its effect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI



At no point have I or would I attempt to convince you or anyone else that Bachmann is anything but a hack. Regardless of her hack status or lack of integrity, however, I would strongly prefer her to Peter King, a man of conviction and integrity who simply happens to be an open and honest advocate of just about everything you and I hate in the realms of foreign policy and government surveillance. If integrity matters just as much to you as how a person votes, then I can only say that I think you are making a terrible mistake and leave it at that.

Ummm what? Can I have some of your straw when you get done building your masive strawman? You're arguing against a position that no one here has made.

We are not taking our ball and going home. This site exists to elect and support better liberty-friendly candidates, so we don't just have to choose between a douche and a turd.

If not settling for puppets like Bachmann means I'm making a huge mistake, then I'm perfectly fine with that. Have fun with the government you deserve.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 10:05 AM
Ummm what? Can I have some of your straw when you get done building your masive strawman? You're arguing against a position that no one here has made.

Forgive me if I misunderstood and/or misrepresented your position. Based on


You really think we're here to choose between the "lesser of two evils" that is the direct catalyst to us getting the crappy corrupt representatives we deserve?

You'll find that we're not impressed with those who try to kiss our asses with libertarian-minded votes.

I thought it was pretty clear that you were refusing to vote for or support the "lesser of two evils" in elections where both major parties fielded candidates that were some meaningful sense "evil." If you claim that this is a straw-man, then may I infer that you voted for Mitt Romney in 2012?


We are not taking our ball and going home. This site exists to elect and support better liberty-friendly candidates, so we don't just have to choose between a douche and a turd.

You're not taking your ball and going home yet. Like you, I am interested in electing and supporting liberty-friendly candidates so that we don't have to choose between a douche and a turd. However, if that effort fails, then I have no compunctions about voting for the turd, and my claim is that you shouldn't either.


If not settling for puppets like Bachmann means I'm making a huge mistake, then I'm perfectly fine with that. Have fun with the government you deserve.

At this point I can do no more than quote words I have already written. Your brain appears to be broken and incapable of processing them, but perhaps a repeat reading will help.

The causes of the "crappy corrupt representatives" you complain about are more myriad than you suppose, and the mere tactic of refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils will not produce the outcome(s) you seek. In a first-past-the-post system of electoral democracy, a rational actor whose goal is to maximize his or her impact will engage in exactly this sort of behavior on a regular basis. The problem is not this willingness (exhibited by so many citizens) to play the game by the rules as they have been laid out - the problem is that the rules themselves are rigged to reliably produce poor governance. The solution is not to take one's ball and go home - this will have no impact whatsoever on the outcome - the solution is to try and change the rules of the game. The belief that attempting to change the rules of a game requires refusing to play it in the meantime is simply an intellectual mistake.

Todd
04-17-2014, 11:15 AM
You are entitled to your opinion. Every objective evaluation of my intelligence suggests that I'm way over on the right side of the bell curve, though, so this astonishingly inaccurate assessment of my critical thinking skills strongly suggests (in an entertainingly ironic fashion) that you're more likely to be (relatively) mentally handicapped than me.




Lots of "intelligent" people have been wrong, unwise and ignorant. One's critical thinking skills might be considered "debatable". The fact that you think this forum is about people taking their ball and going home suggests you have no clue what's gone on here for half a decade.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 11:44 AM
Lots of "intelligent" people have been wrong, unwise and ignorant.

Indeed. And had TheGrinch elected to claim that I was wrong, unwise, or ignorant, I'd not have responded as I did. Instead, however, his claim was that I am an idiot. This is a position strongly contradicted by all available evidence, and taking that position tends to show (in an ironic fashion, as I pointed out) that the person holding it may well be an idiot.


One's critical thinking skills might be considered "debatable".

Agreed, though I don't see much point in debating them directly. A far more productive exercise would be to debate other issues and simultaneously evaluate the critical thinking skills of parties to the debate.


The fact that you think this forum is about people taking their ball and going home suggests you have no clue what's gone on here for half a decade.

The fact that you think I think this forum is about people taking their ball and going home suggests you have no clue what I think. At no point have I made any claim that could reasonably be interpreted in this way. How you came by this mistaken understanding is clear, and it implies the existence of sloppy and imprecise thinking. I would encourage you to read my words more literally and make fewer leaps of intuition.

Todd
04-17-2014, 12:25 PM
The fact that you think I think this forum is about people taking their ball and going home suggests you have no clue what I think. At no point have I made any claim that could reasonably be interpreted in this way. How you came by this mistaken understanding is clear, and it implies the existence of sloppy and imprecise thinking. I would encourage you to read my words more literally and make fewer leaps of intuition.

Hmm. Since recent studies have concluded that intuition is pretty precise if not equal to determining facts, I might reject your faulty analysis. So thanks, but I'll stick with trying to seek wisdom and logic and a healthy dose of following my "gut instincts". Me thinks you aren't here for much of anything resembling activism anyhow based on the friends you've made with endearing terms such as Homonids perusing your 78 posts. I'd say I'm supremely confident I'm on target with that conclusion.

Todd
04-17-2014, 12:26 PM
Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

Neocon central and King Dingaling Neocon himself sure thinks she is.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michele-bachmann-neocon_525855.html

francisco
04-17-2014, 02:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hz6g6Kq_WI

TheGrinch
04-17-2014, 02:27 PM
Indeed. And had TheGrinch elected to claim that I was wrong, unwise, or ignorant, I'd not have responded as I did. Instead, however, his claim was that I am an idiot. This is a position strongly contradicted by all available evidence, and taking that position tends to show (in an ironic fashion, as I pointed out) that the person holding it may well be an idiot.



Agreed, though I don't see much point in debating them directly. A far more productive exercise would be to debate other issues and simultaneously evaluate the critical thinking skills of parties to the debate.



The fact that you think I think this forum is about people taking their ball and going home suggests you have no clue what I think. At no point have I made any claim that could reasonably be interpreted in this way. How you came by this mistaken understanding is clear, and it implies the existence of sloppy and imprecise thinking. I would encourage you to read my words more literally and make fewer leaps of intuition.

Are you still rambling? I never claimed you were an idiot or said anything a out you personally, just that you're wasting your time with the lesser of two evil stuff.

Whatever reason you have a hard on for me, I'm sorry, I'm just not into you.

acptulsa
04-17-2014, 02:32 PM
I recognize that the vast majority of hominids are philosophically unsophisticated and predisposed towards black-and-white judgments that only poorly reflect the underlying reality they face. My aim is not to persuade those whose minds are incapable of perceiving finer gradients that they ought to (or ought to try, even), but instead to simply speak the truth and thereby encourage those who are capable of improving their understanding to do so.

So that's why your rhetoric is stilted and polysyllabic to the point of being incomprehensible--for clarity of understanding?


The causes of the "crappy corrupt representatives" you complain about are more myriad than you suppose, and the mere tactic of refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils will not produce the outcome(s) you seek. In a first-past-the-post system of electoral democracy, a rational actor whose goal is to maximize his or her impact will engage in exactly this sort of behavior on a regular basis. The problem is not this willingness (exhibited by so many citizens) to play the game by the rules as they have been laid out - the problem is that the rules themselves are rigged to reliably produce poor governance. The solution is not to take one's ball and go home - this will have no impact whatsoever on the outcome - the solution is to try and change the rules of the game. The belief that attempting to change the rules of a game requires refusing to play it in the meantime is simply an intellectual mistake.

So, voting for the lesser evil like good little sheep is just as important, or more important, than going to the state party convention and trying to get candidates who aren't evil nominated?


You'll find that you ought to be. The motivations behind a vote change not one whit of its effect.

So, you're advocating that we should be happy that someone paves our road to Hell with their (allegedly) good intentions--and refuse to look for someone with brains enough to be able to get good results from their good intentions to replace the well-intentioned fool with?


At no point have I or would I attempt to convince you or anyone else that Bachmann is anything but a hack. Regardless of her hack status or lack of integrity, however, I would strongly prefer her to Peter King, a man of conviction and integrity who simply happens to be an open and honest advocate of just about everything you and I hate in the realms of foreign policy and government surveillance. If integrity matters just as much to you as how a person votes, then I can only say that I think you are making a terrible mistake and leave it at that.

You would prefer the subtle evil to the overt evil. Most would. But because a spy is ingratiating, and a foreign soldier is menacing, the spy is arguably far, far more dangerous. And refusing to see or acknowledge that simple fact is the idiocy.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 05:40 PM
Hmm. Since recent studies have concluded that intuition is pretty precise if not equal to determining facts, I might reject your faulty analysis.

Cite?


So thanks, but I'll stick with trying to seek wisdom and logic and a healthy dose of following my "gut instincts".

kk enjoy


Me thinks you aren't here for much of anything resembling activism anyhow based on the friends you've made with endearing terms such as Homonids perusing your 78 posts.

hominids*

It's basically just another word for human. Not sure why you'd find it offensive.

Whether I'm here for "activism" depends on how you define it. I mostly just come here when I've got time to kill because it's a good place to find news related to the Liberty Movement, which I've been a proud supporter of for many years. I am not here to make friends and wasn't aware that I had. I have almost certainly donated more money to liberty candidates and related Super PACs than you over the years though.


I'd say I'm supremely confident I'm on target with that conclusion.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/srcstc.gif

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 05:42 PM
Neocon central and King Dingaling Neocon himself sure thinks she is.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michele-bachmann-neocon_525855.html

The term "neocon" was originally coined to refer to liberal Democrats who were "mugged by reality" and became conservatives. That's why he's calling her a neocon - because she's telling a story about how she used to be a Jimmy Carter supporter. He is not talking about her policy positions here.

That you need this explained is somewhat cringe-inducing.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 05:45 PM
Are you still rambling? I never claimed you were an idiot or said anything a out you personally, just that you're wasting your time with the lesser of two evil stuff.

Whatever reason you have a hard on for me, I'm sorry, I'm just not into you.

Apologies, I confused you with Danke. Apparently I'm not paying enough attention here to competently engage in discussion, so withdrawing might not be the worst idea you ever had. If you were a bit more open-minded I might recommend continued dialogue, but it doesn't seem like that'd be productive, so farewell.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 05:58 PM
So that's why your rhetoric is stilted and polysyllabic to the point of being incomprehensible--for clarity of understanding?

I'm sorry if you have trouble with big words. I can try to use simpler ones if that will help.


So, voting for the lesser evil like good little sheep is just as important, or more important, than going to the state party convention and trying to get candidates who aren't evil nominated?

No, the opposite of this. Voting for the lesser evil like good little sheep is much less important than going to the state party convention and trying to get candidates who aren't evil nominated. But voting for (and encouraging others to vote for) the lesser evil like good little sheep has a nonzero positive value. My claim is that refusing to do this may fairly be described as taking one's ball and going home.


So, you're advocating that we should be happy that someone paves our road to Hell with their (allegedly) good intentions--and refuse to look for someone with brains enough to be able to get good results from their good intentions to replace the well-intentioned fool with?

No, the opposite of this. We should be annoyed when our foolish fellow primary voters select stupid men/women to represent our party on the ballot and should make a concerted effort to prevent this sort of thing from happening by supporting candidates like Ron/Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie in their elections.


You would prefer the subtle evil to the overt evil. Most would. But because a spy is ingratiating, and a foreign soldier is menacing, the spy is arguably far, far more dangerous. And refusing to see or acknowledge that simple fact is the idiocy.

No, the opposite of this. If two things are equally evil, I would rather face the overt than the subtle. My claim is that two different things are almost never equally evil.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on who I am or what/how I think. I would encourage you to make a greater effort at understanding.

acptulsa
04-17-2014, 06:12 PM
Apologies, I confused you with Danke. Apparently I'm not paying enough attention here to competently engage in discussion, so withdrawing might not be the worst idea you ever had. If you were a bit more open-minded I might recommend continued dialogue, but it doesn't seem like that'd be productive, so farewell.


I'm sorry if you have trouble with big words. I can try to use simpler ones if that will help.

Neither 'Danke' nor 'Grinch' is all that big a word. We could select longer user names if that would help.

Oh, sorry, am I delaying you from taking your ball and going home because we debated with you rather than being 'open minded' enough to just say, 'Yes, sir' and +rep you? Don't let me do that. I hate to spoil a poignant farewell.


No, the opposite of this. Voting for the lesser evil like good little sheep is much less important than going to the state party convention and trying to get candidates who aren't evil nominated. But voting for (and encouraging others to vote for) the lesser evil like good little sheep has a nonzero positive value. My claim is that refusing to do this may fairly be described as taking one's ball and going home.



No, the opposite of this. We should be annoyed when our foolish fellow primary voters select stupid men/women to represent our party on the ballot and should make a concerted effort to prevent this sort of thing from happening by supporting candidates like Ron/Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie in their elections.



No, the opposite of this. If two things are equally evil, I would rather face the overt than the subtle. My claim is that two different things are almost never equally evil.

But if the lesser evil is using that fact to be more effective in the cause of evil--if the spy is less evil than the soldier because the spy kills no one but the spy, by virtue of being tolerated for that reason, commits more evil than the soldier ever could, is the lesser evil really less evil?


You don't seem to have a very good grasp on who I am or what/how I think. I would encourage you to make a greater effort at understanding.

There have been many times in my life when I have been less clear in making a point than I wanted to be. Often I have thought about how to make myself clearer and have found that I needed to think the subject through more carefully. So, when I am unclear, I seldom put the onus on the listener. I generally try to be adult enough to shoulder the responsibility myself.

menciusmoldbug
04-17-2014, 06:39 PM
Neither 'Danke' nor 'Grinch' is all that big a word. We could select longer user names if that would help.

lol, fair shot, I earned this one.


Oh, sorry, am I delaying you from taking your ball and going home because we debated with you rather than being 'open minded' enough to just say, 'Yes, sir' and +rep you? Don't let me do that. I hate to spoil a poignant farewell.

?

I wasn't saying "farewell" because I'm leaving, I said it because TheGrinch said he was leaving! I do occasionally get bored with anonymous internet conversations and decide they're not worth the effort I'm expending on them, leading to my sudden departure, but this one hasn't reached that point yet.


But if the lesser evil is using that fact to be more effective in the cause of evil--if the spy is less evil than the soldier because the spy kills no one but the spy, by virtue of being tolerated for that reason, commits more evil than the soldier ever could, is the lesser evil really less evil?

No, in that case what you're calling the "lesser evil" would in fact be the greater evil. And it is definitely worth taking these sorts of things into consideration when deciding whom to vote for and support. A good example of this is George W. Bush - I wish he had lost in both 2000 and 2004 despite the fact that I am obviously not a supporter of Gore or Kerry. But this preference is not strong enough that I actually would have voted for Gore or Kerry - merely strong enough to deny the Republican Party a vote and money that it ordinarily would have gotten. The insidious effect of allowing the neocons to take over the Republican Party was large enough that I think having them lose to the Democrats at the presidential level in those years would have been preferable to having them win.

But note that this judgment is still entirely about identifying the lesser evil. Sometimes the lesser evil is an impure/moderate Republican, and sometimes it isn't. Deciding which situations are which requires the exercise of calm, measured reasoning.


There have been many times in my life when I have been less clear in making a point than I wanted to be. Often I have thought about how to make myself clearer and have found that I needed to think the subject through more carefully. So, when I am unclear, I seldom put the onus on the listener. I generally try to be adult enough to shoulder the responsibility myself.

I harbor the opposite impulse and don't think less of myself for it. This is likely the product of having spent a great deal of time around persons whom I consider to be intellectually impaired. Would you "try to be adult enough to shoulder the responsibility" of teaching calculus to a chimpanzee? Sometimes people simply lack the tools necessary to understand the concepts you're presenting.

If you can point to specific instances where you feel my words have been misleading, I'd be happy to try and tweak my language moving forward in order to prevent future misunderstandings. But right now I think you simply leapt to some unwarranted conclusions.