2012 Debates

[Toontown]

Toontown,

We have, for better or worse, two choices. I support Obama because I can at least define where he stands and how he is likely to perform. Romney is intentionally a cipher. I thought I would actually like the guy, but he has proven himself unlikeable.

-Ben

I never had much hope of liking Romney. Other than that, I can't sympathize with you much, because I am a neocon, like Obama and JFK.

 

[Toontown]

[cough]Tora-Bora![/cough]

Thanks for the example. Yes, Bush was on bin Laden like a duck on a june bug at Tora-Bora, but unfortunately there were lots of caves to hide in and not enough U.S. ground forces to seal off the mountainous area. They were forced to send in Afghans who called a truce, cut a deal, and let bin Laden get away.

But not before some daisy-cutters were dropped, and some other B-52-generated rumblings were heard. bin Laden escaped, but not for lack of interest, as dishonest ideologues have been at pains to paint it.

 

[DavidJames]

I never had much hope of liking Romney. Other than that, I can't sympathize with you much, because I an a neocon, like Obama and JFK.

That wasn't funny, clever or profound the first time you wrote it in this thread. I suggest getting a new gig or crawl back under the bridge.

 

[Toontown]

That wasn't funny, clever or profound the first time you wrote it in this thread. I suggest getting a new gig or crawl back under the bridge.

I'm sorry. Has His Majesty been insufficiently entertained?

Well...I suppose His Majestic Highness will simply have to suffer.

 

[RandFan]

Toontown,

We have, for better or worse, two choices. I support Obama because I can at least define where he stands and how he is likely to perform. Romney is intentionally a cipher. I thought I would actually like the guy, but he has proven himself unlikeable.

-Ben

Wouldn't it be great to live in a perfect world? There is much about Obama I don't like. But I'll take him over Romney at the moment. And yeah, I honestly don't know where Romney stands on any position. If I had to venture a guess I would say he has no principles whatsoever but is a political animal. His positions are what you want them to be so long as he can be leader. If he were president I think there is a fair chance he would govern mostly from center right like Obama.

I could vote for Romney. If it were simply a choice between Romney and Bush I'd take Romney. Not by much but the things is, as bad as Romney's diplomatic and rhetorical skills are Bush's are much worse. I think Romney is smarter than Bush and he has had success in the business world. He has a record of leadership that demonstrates in my mind that he is better than Bush.

The world will not come to an end if Romney wins. And if Romney wins I will grant him the respect that the office calls for but I very much reserve the right to complain loudly at his decisions and to mock an deride his errors (comedians are pulling for Romney when it comes to material).

 

[davefoc]

That wasn't funny, clever or profound the first time you wrote it in this thread. I suggest getting a new gig or crawl back under the bridge.

First I don't know what Tootown meant by his comment, but using my powers of pareidolia I think he was referring to the fact that aspects of Obama's foreign policy are very similar to Bush's especially in the last years of the Bush administration when the practice of using the Iraq war and occupation as a giant pork fest to reward Republican crony corporations was curtailed.

And he may have been referring to the fact that Obama routinely expresses fealty to Israel which is a central tenet of neoconism.

Of course the Republicans claim that Obama is the worst president ever on foreign policy so one might think that Obama is doing something radically different than they would do. But at least according to Romney it doesn't seem that way:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/jon-stewart-rips-romney-obama-foreign-policy_n_2008581.html

What I think you (DavidJames) might be saying (again using my powers of pareidolia) is that Obama's foreign policy varies significantly from the in-your-face belligerence that also seems to be an aspect of neoconism. i.e. though shalt not ever admit that American actions have been problematic, though shalt always insist on American control of every every action with US allies and most of all the American leader needs to act like a pompous jerk so the world knows who has the nukes and who doesn't. And on that kind of thing I agree Obama is not a neocon.

 

[Toontown]

First I don't know what Tootown meant by his comment, but using my powers of pareidolia I think he was referring to the fact that aspects of Obama's foreign policy are very similar to Bush's especially in the last years of the Bush administration when the practice of using the Iraq war and occupation as a giant pork fest to reward Republican crony corporations was curtailed.

And he may have been referring to the fact that Obama routinely expresses fealty to Israel which is a central tenet of neoconism.

Of course the Republicans claim that Obama is the worst president ever on foreign policy so one might think that Obama is doing something radically different than they would do. But at least according to Romney it doesn't seem that way:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/jon-stewart-rips-romney-obama-foreign-policy_n_2008581.html

What I think you (DavidJames) might be saying (again using my powers of pareidolia) is that Obama's foreign policy varies significantly from the in-your-face belligerence that also seems to be an aspect of neoconism. i.e. though shalt not ever admit that American actions have been problematic, though shalt always insist on American control of every every action with US allies and most of all the American leader needs to act like a pompous jerk so the world knows who has the nukes and who doesn't. And on that kind of thing I agree Obama is not a neocon.

I don't know why you bothered to post. You don't seem to have much of a clue what "neoconism" is.

I would be mildly shocked if 10% of leftists have a clear idea of what neoconservatism is. I did an internet search, looking for an honest, objective explanation of neoconservatism, and found page after page of wall-eyed leftist ideologue anti-neocon harangues. Obviously the hard left is spamming the net and using "neocons" as convenient scapegoats and whipping-boys. The average leftie, loathe to look at any information that doesn't come from a fellow traveller, would be completely taken in and utterly disinformed.

It took a while to dig through all the lefto-spam, but I eventually found this:

http://the-classic-liberal.com/conservative-what-is-neocon/

Leftist readers will quickly see that a good deal of careful cherry-picking (or simple, stubborn denialism) will be required to absolve JFK, Obama, and even Clinton from the loathesome stigma.

Oh, the horror.They are neocons.

 

[SezMe]

I would be mildly shocked if 10% of leftists have a clear idea of what neoconservatism is. I did an internet search, looking for an honest, objective explanation of neoconservatism, and found page after page of wall-eyed leftist ideologue anti-neocon harangues. Obviously the hard left is spamming the net and using "neocons" as convenient scapegoats and whipping-boys. The average leftie, loathe to look at any information that doesn't come from a fellow traveller, would be completely taken in and utterly disinformed.

I would be mildly shocked if 10% of righties have a clear idea of what liberalism is. I did an internet search, looking for an honest, objective explanation of liberalism, and found page after page of wall-eyed righty ideologue anti-liberal harangues. Obviously the right left is spamming the net and using "liberals" as convenient scapegoats and whipping-boys. The average rightie, loathe to look at any information that doesn't come from a fellow traveller, would be completely taken in and utterly disinformed.

The parallel is stunningly beautiful, don't you think, Toon?

 

[Ziggurat]

The average rightie, loathe to look at any information that doesn't come from a fellow traveller, would be completely taken in and utterly disinformed.

The parallel is stunningly beautiful, don't you think, Toon?

You stumbled on the hilighted part. The term "fellow traveler" has a rather specific history associated with the left and communism, so it's jarringly out of place when used to describe "righties". You really should have picked a different term if you wanted your parallel to be "stunningly beautiful", because as it is, that term signals that the paragraph could not have been originally written about righties. And that's the point of making such a parallel, right? To demonstrate that the logic is symmetric, that nothing distinguishes the validity of the two versions, and so it's of no use in distinguishing left from right? It's a good technique, I've done it myself plenty of times, but you can't leave tell-tale traces like that when you translate, it spoils the effect.

 

[davefoc]

I don't know why you bothered to post. You don't seem to have much of a clue what "neoconism" is.

I would be mildly shocked if 10% of leftists have a clear idea of what neoconservatism is. I did an internet search, looking for an honest, objective explanation of neoconservatism, and found page after page of wall-eyed leftist ideologue anti-neocon harangues. Obviously the hard left is spamming the net and using "neocons" as convenient scapegoats and whipping-boys. The average leftie, loathe to look at any information that doesn't come from a fellow traveller, would be completely taken in and utterly disinformed.

It took a while to dig through all the lefto-spam, but I eventually found this:

http://the-classic-liberal.com/conservative-what-is-neocon/

Leftist readers will quickly see that a good deal of careful cherry-picking (or simple, stubborn denialism) will be required to absolve JFK, Obama, and even Clinton from the loathesome stigma.

Oh, the horror.They are neocons.

With respect, I am still guessing at what you are talking about. It looked to me like everything I said was consistent with the definition of neoconism that you linked to. I know there's been some movement in the definition of the term and I expected a response that criticized me for not using precisely the definition you had in mind, but I didn't expect a response that criticized me for using the term in a way that was consistent with a definition that you linked to.

But apparently I wrote something in my post that you disagree with, perhaps my guess on what you were talking about was wrong. Perhaps you could just state clearly what you are talking about. Alas, I haven't followed the previous musings of Toontown in detail and I truly don't know where you are coming from or what your point is.

 

[SezMe]

You stumbled on the hilighted part. The term "fellow traveler" has a rather specific history associated with the left and communism, so it's jarringly out of place when used to describe "righties".

It has a loose connotation, not a specific history. In addition, I've never heard it as other than meaning a like-thinking person. Hence, it may jar you but it doesn't me. I'll stick with my previous parallel.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It has a loose connotation, not a specific history. In addition, I've never heard it as other than meaning a like-thinking person. Hence, it may jar you but it doesn't me. I'll stick with my previous parallel.

Uh, no. It has a very specific history as a term to identify people who were not "card carrying members of the CP", but were major sympathizers. It became a really ugly term in the witch hunts in the 40s and 50s.

Other than with considerable poetic license or maximum tongue-in-cheek, I don't think I can recall anyone using it to describe someone on the right and I've been around a long time.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'd say it's about time, then.

 

[Toontown]

I would be mildly shocked if 10% of righties have a clear idea of what liberalism is. I did an internet search, looking for an honest, objective explanation of liberalism, and found page after page of wall-eyed righty ideologue anti-liberal harangues. Obviously the right left is spamming the net and using "liberals" as convenient scapegoats and whipping-boys. The average rightie, loathe to look at any information that doesn't come from a fellow traveller, would be completely taken in and utterly disinformed.

The parallel is stunningly beautiful, don't you think, Toon?

I haven't bothered to try such a search, but offhand, I wouldn't doubt your assertion. Except for the highlighted parts. "liberals" and "leftists" are not identical. "fellow traveller" has a distinct leftist connection.

You might be laboring under the misconception that neoconservatives and paleoconservatives march in lockstep. A careful reading of the linked article should disabuse of any such misconception.

Also, a careful reading of JFK's inauguration speech should dispel any notions that JFK's ideology was related to the "neocon"-haters of today. JFK's ideology was closely related to neoconservatism.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The hidden really, really final debate:

 

[AlBell]

I'd say it's about time, then.

Who are republican conservatives fellow travelling with?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Whoever they're traveling with. I don't see what's so lefty about the people you're sharing your political or personal life with.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Who are republican conservatives fellow travelling with?

Jesus?