"I guess you’ve gotta start some time."
(I don't know that Chuck was making this point directly, but it's as good of a place to start as any.)
The "why weren't you protesting when Bush was spending like a madman?" theme is a tired one. It's a reasonable point to make if you're on the left, but it's a blip on the radar at best. To discount ideology entirely in the protests/demonstrations would be lunacy. There would still be outrage if Bush was spending the way Obama is proposing (and has done), but of course there'd be much more equivocating by the right. And there would definitely be much more leeway given (and excuses made).
But that is no reason to diminish the merit of the complaints entirely. The demonstrators have a beef with Obama that is partly ideological and partly principled. A small number have been consistently voicing opposition while Bush was spending madly, but not in the numbers we're seeing now. To dismiss the complaint simply because many of these same people weren't voicing them during the Bush years is misguided.
It no more diminishes the argument being made now than it does the Bush years' anti-war movement that has largely vanished from the headlines now that Obama is in office. That movement may resurrect itself if Obama decides to increase troop levels even further in Afghanistan, but the numbers will be much smaller. Those will be the principled few who don't care what ideology you are.
Argue the point. Don't dismiss it simply because someone is late to the party or ideologically driven to the debate.
Being a hypocrite makes you certain things, but it doesn't necessarily make you wrong.Comment Posted By sota On 13.09.2009 @ 17:57
"Arguing that if a bill won’t prevent a prohibited action 100% of the time, then it implicitly supports that action is hogwash.."
I wasn't arguing anything with my last statement. I'm genuinely curious how narrowly Section 246 applies. If a bill provides A, B, and C. And illegals are explicitly denied access to B, then they do implicitly have access to A and C. I'm honestly curious how Section 246 applies to the bill as a whole. Is the scope so limited that it won't do much of anything?Comment Posted By sota On 12.09.2009 @ 12:30
This does apply only to Subtitle C (Individual Affordability Credits). I don't know the full bill well enough to know if that's specifically too limiting.
Have you found anywhere else in the bill where it restricts access or provides for a mechanism to prove citizenship?Comment Posted By sota On 12.09.2009 @ 06:16
Obama: Our reform will not cover illegal immigrants.Comment Posted By sota On 11.09.2009 @ 21:17
Democrats: Boo! Hiss! Decorum, sir!
Republicans: Sure, it may have been rude, but the Democrats did it to Bush!
Democrats: But nobody every called Bush liar...at a Joint Session of Congress...on a Wednesday night.
Messenger-killers: Wilson is a southern, confederate flag-flying racist! He gets free health insurance! Hypocrite! No blood for oil! Haliburton!
Public: What were we talking about again?
"This type of humor only works if your own party doesn’t suck on so many basic and fundamental levels."
Nah, it works anyway.Comment Posted By sota On 11.09.2009 @ 15:38
"I wholeheartedly agree."
I see what you did there. :)
I wonder if Republicans were just as taken aback when people said, "You think Bush is getting it bad? Hello? Do you remember the 90s? Clinton was steamrolled from day one."Comment Posted By sota On 4.09.2009 @ 17:37
"...Bush DID know..."
Are we still on this? Seriously? This garbage still passes as discourse? I know this is the internet, but can't we all agree to put a little effort into debate? Holy Moses, this gets old.
As for Van Jones, I think cynical opportunist just about nails it. I think he took his views to where the passions on the left were at any given moment. Frankly, a "Green Job" czar actually seems a little tame for him. "Going Green" is almost too mainstream to fit his style. I suspect he jumped at the prospect of power and the high-visibility nature of the position. That high-visibility will likely end up being his downfall as well.Comment Posted By sota On 4.09.2009 @ 17:33
"I had recently gotten out of a relationship with a woman who liked porn,..."
"Believing this was something of an oddity, I researched the subject"
Did you research in the same way the rest of the male population does when their girlfriend breaks up with them? Or was this more clinical?
Interesting article, Rick. Although I'm always dubious of surveys or polls that are sexual in nature. I firmly believe there is a tendency in these types of topics to exaggerate or fantasize through the act of answering "naughty". Your point is still made, but I'm not sure we can ever get a real accurate measure of these kinds of statistics.Comment Posted By sota On 30.08.2009 @ 06:48
"Are you kidding me?
Having a firm adherence or allegiance to a political party."
Not kidding at all. At least we agree on the term "partisan". Labeling Rick a partisan is laughable, at best. That's why I ask. He can obviously speak for himself (or his blog postings can in his absence), but if you've spent any time reading or listening to him you'd understand why that's the case.
Nagarajan has a lot more patience than I do, so I won't bother with the details. Suffice it to say, Rick defends his principles vehemently, but he does not defend Republicans blindly (which, I assume, is your implication with the label). I think even his critics here would agree that he's conservative before Republican.Comment Posted By sota On 30.08.2009 @ 17:44
"It has always been evident to me that you are a partisan Rick"
Define partisan, please.Comment Posted By sota On 30.08.2009 @ 06:40