Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 181 To 190 Of 657 Comments
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM A LIBERAL? (PART II)
@Doug King:
"I fear nationalized healthcare because I don’t trust politicians or bureaucrats to keep promises."
This I can agree with completely. My support for healthcare reform is not something I came to regardless of this problem . . . but despite it. I trust the private Insurance industry less than I do the government.
There is no doubt in my mind that government health-care will lead to waste, abuse, the consolidation of political pull, ineffeciency, etc. They are the government, it's inevitable. But even with all of that, the government isn't saddled also with greed on a case-by-case basis. Private companies have a real, powerful incentive to deny coverage (profit) affirmatively, and that strikes me as more dangerous than passive incompetence.It's not a choice (from my eyes) between a good and bad option, but a choice between which is worse. Does the negative of extra government outweigh the benefit of universal healthcare? I don't like government . . . but in my heart no. It does not.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.10.2009 @ 21:58
"The confusion comes in identifying “issues” as principles - a trap ideologues fall into regularly. Substituting dogma, which by its nature can be transient responses to momentary openings offered by the opposition, for immutable principles which, by definition, are unchanging, is what ideologues in the movement are all about."
Why does the Truth always reverberate like poetry?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.10.2009 @ 21:47
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: IT'S RESTING
Tell Galileo that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 20:42
Just noticed rick's comment on mikereynolds @33.
A honest but suprising declaration from from a Republican? I think its true, but isn't that heresy?
Common sense is never heresy.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 15:54
I've finally hit on a system to filter the comments based on Beckian faith and Conservative philosophy.
Got a copy of Scottish bagpipes playing Amazing Grace, slow and mournful at first but gradually swelling to chin-out pride.
I use it as part of my "Hamburger Hill" playlist for videogaming. Often, me and my friends will play a "desperate holdout or suicidal charge against overwhelming odds" set, just for the emotional drama. Our platoon may be doomed, but by God we're taking an honor guard to Hell with us. One for All, All for One! Damn the torpedoes . . . full speed ahead! Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn! WOLVERINEEEEEEES! the "HH" playlist gives an appropriately encouraging backdrop to the games. Amazing Grace, some excerpts of Olympic fanfare, The Ants go Marching, the final charge music from Braveheart . . . you get the idea.If Amazing Grace provides a suitable backdrop to your comment . . . you MIGHT be a Beckian.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.10.2009 @ 19:05
WHERE ARE ALL THE 'GOOD GOVERNMENT' LIBERALS?
"Either way, that makes his trip a failure, and only Obama is responsible for that."
That's a statement that I can agree with in a rational sense. I don't agree that it is a "Capital 'F' FAILURE" which seems to be the tenor of the criticism, but it is, in the sense you defined it, a literal failure to achieve that goal, so the statement is gramatically "fair". I'll agree to that.
But that's not what Rick said. He blamed it on Obama's past statements, and developed an argument that he was "not-ready-for-primetime" which is demonstrated by his making "bad" statements that were destructive to America's interests (getting the nod). A capable leader would know not to say such things bacuase of exactly this kind of fallout. Amatuer!
And that is an ENTIRELY different kettle of fish.
Rick isn't saying Obama failed to sell the bid -- he argued that the prior statements of Obama ruined the sales job before it even happened. Whether Obama went to the IOC or not isn't what settled the Chicago bid in his post -- it was what people heard/thought of America from Obama before he went. He "badmouthed" America, so hell no we won't give you a bid. It wasn't a failure of salesmanship, but rather his traitorous slander that scared the IOC.
What Rick implied is that if Obama hadn't made "those" statements, then Chicago would have had a better chance at the bid. "Well, we might have held the Olympics in Chicago, but this friggin' jagoff shows up asking us to do it? If he asked me to keep breathing I'd hold my breath until I pass out -- did you hear he said America wasn't always perfect?!? What a dickhole!"
Perhaps Obama can be blamed in some manner for the IOC decision -- since we don't know why Brazil got it and we didn't, we don't know if Obama was a hindrance or a benefit that ultimately wasn't enough. Leaping to "Obama's Anti-American ideologically driven rants influenced the deal" is wishful thinking, and hurtful, unproductive, destructive, hate-fulled wishful thinking at that.
I said we have no idea what motivated the IOC decision, but let me try to go beyond that. I'm not an IOC member. You aren't either (an educated guess on my part). But just to fantasize, what issues do you think influence their decision? Potential for profit? Potential facilities? How much the members get bribed? Favoritism? How the selection will play out in the world media? Begging? I could imagine any and/or all of these playing some role in their decision.
How unsupportive a country's leader has been of past administrations for the bidding country? I really can't imagine that would factor at all. If the new President said something like "We've stopped most of the roaming death squads, but there's still a few out there we'll try to clean up before the games" . . . then maybe, but that to me falls more under "not making the games look bad with a massacre" and less under "the leader isn't supportive enough of past regimes".
Furthermore, that assumes that Obama's statements were offensive to the IOC. I know that to the True Red Faithful, his comments (which were precisely what?) were the equivilant of a Black Mass . . . but did non-Americans recoil in horror? Did they condemn Obama? Did they care? Wasn't most of the planet moderately pissed off at us already? I sort of thought they were pissed off because of exactly what Obama was talking about -- wouldn't that mean that the comments HELPED, instead of hurt?
That he did not secure the bid is an undisputed fact. Should he have tried to get the bid without having a guarantee that his efforts would pay off? Maybe, but maybe not. I think that's a debatable point, but a fair debate in that there are credible views on both sides (to me, at least).
That the bid failed to some extent because of prior Obama comments unrelated to the Olympic bid? That's uncredible regardless of whether he brought the bid home or not. To propose that, as Rick did, can't be motivated by any facts, but rather by unsupported hatred. And that's what I'm complaining about. I understand disliking a person, but that's not a justification for criticism -- it's a replacement for justification.
Since it isn't based on facts, we can just keep saying it no matter what happens. Dow went down? Obama shouldn't have made those comments. What an Amatuer. Dow went up? The market rallied just to show Obama that nobody respected him for being such an amatuer and making those statements. Friggin' amatuer. I get it. Obama is wrong in thought, word, and deed. Nothing more to add? Then I'm going to stop listening . . . and I don't want to stop listening.
You've explained how Obama failed in his mission, and fairly so. Can you explain how Obama's comments "speaking negatively of his country" (again . . . what exactly did he say?) influenced the failure? If it did, or if it reasonably could have . . . then I'm wrong and I'll learn something about how the world works. If it didn't or couldn't reasonably have influenced the failure . . . then Rick is wrong and he shouldn't stoop to that crap.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.10.2009 @ 00:24
Comment #15 was from me, who obviously forgot the whole "enter your name" part of commenting. Apologies.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.10.2009 @ 02:59
Question for Rick:
"He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard this same president speak of his own nation’s many shortcomings for nearly a year."
What makes this more accurate than the following:
"He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard his own citizens screaming that he is the living reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin rolled into one. They see citizens proudly showing off their weapondry as they stand outside his 'town halls'. They see the barely disguised calls for armed revolution played out on national media . . . and they certainly don't want to give the violent opposition an easy public target to attack."
I certainly don't suppose that the IOC followed that thought process. I have absolutely no reason (aside from my personal bias) to think it was the Obama-haters fault. But I could wildly speculate that was the cause, and thereby put all the "blame" for not getting the nod on the Tea Party crowd. What makes your assignation of blame any more accurate?
Correlation never automatically equals causation, and attempting to do so is either a sign of ignorance as to the prior statement (which I don't believe applies to you) . . . or it represents an attempt to "cheat" an argument forward with weak or nonexistent support.
One weak or unsupported facet of an argument poisons the rest, however valid. You make good points . . . then throw them away. My personal opinion, it is better to make a shorter stronger argument than to add some weaksauce for bulk. Your call, but just my 2 cents.
I assume your analysis is targeted at the indecisives in your audience. You don't have to say anything for the Haters -- all you have to do is post "Obama iz Teh Stoopid" and they'll fall all over themselves singing your praises. The people who might be pursuaded are a skittish lot . . . don't spook them with biased insanity or your rational snare goes to waste.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.10.2009 @ 19:25
"I want the Olympics in the US but the credit would have gone to him rather than those that worked to make it happen."
Then it's certainly better we didn't get it. I'm sure that makes all of those that did work to bring it here feel much better. Makes sense to me.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.10.2009 @ 15:25
OF LOUTS, BRUTES, AND BOORS IN PUBLIC LIFE
I was fully expecting this post to turn into "Repubs are good, Dems are bad" . . . and I was wrong. You hit the problem on the head -- courtesy. And it is a problem that knows no Party loyalty.
"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.10.2009 @ 03:53
Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as 'empty,' 'meaningless,' or 'dishonest,' and scorn to use them. No matter how 'pure' their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."
-- Robert Heinlein
