• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Then and Now

Skeptic

Banned
S
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
Peggy Noonan, 2008:

He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.
Click to expand...

(Pretty embarrassing, what?)

Peggy Noonan, 2010:

He was supposed to be competent
Click to expand...

Of course, some of us worried about Obama's competence long before, but we were just dumb conservatives, you know.
 
Conservatives, forever:

Government should stay out of private industry. Government can't do anything competently. Let the banks fix their own mess, or let them fail. Obama is just another Big Government liberal trying to take over everything. Also, the fault of the Katrina disaster lies on the local government of New Orleans, and the state of Lousiana.
Click to expand...


Conservatives, now:

Obama should have mobilized the omnipotent power and resources of the government to fix the oil disaster. Oh, how he failed. Obama should have prevented this by acting sooner and more forcefully. See how much he sucks?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you're going to go on to the next part of her second quote where she actually says how he hasn't changed foreign policy for the better.. right?

Obama is probably more popular around the world than he is in his own country, right now. That's pretty much the literal opposite of Bush.. Part of the reasoning behind that is, at the very least, his approach to foreign policy
 
Ms. Noonan seems to have a skewed view of what exactly is the responsibility of the Gov't and the President:

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet the need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"
Click to expand...
 
Then: Peggy Noonan was an idiot.
Now: Peggy Noonan is still an idiot.

Noonan Unhinged

The premise of Noonan's moronic column is that the federal government, especially the president, should be capable of ending an oil-pipe rupture owned and operated by private companies, using technology that only deep-sea oil companies deploy or understand. And if such a technical issue is not resolved by government immediately, it reveals paralyzing presidential weakness and the failure of an entire branch of political philosophy. Again: seriously? It's Obama's fault that under Bush and Cheney, government regulation of oil exploration was so poor and corrupt, corner cutting appears to have been routine? And this, Peggy, is what governments do, even when run by crazy-ass liberals. Governments do not dig for oil; they merely regulate those who dig for oil. That the government failed to do so under the previous administration does not seem to me to be proof that this administration has failed.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
Then: Peggy Noonan was an idiot.
Now: Peggy Noonan is still an idiot.
Click to expand...

I can accept that.

Noonan Unhinged
Click to expand...

This, however, is deeply ironic. First off, Andrew Sullivan is himself rather famous for becoming unhinged. They don't call him "excitable Andy" for nothing. But there's also a parallel between him and Noonan: Sullivan was an early supporter of Bush, but later turned on him when he "saw the light", as they say. And both his defense of and his criticism of Bush were rather prone to... flaws in logic. So it's amusing to see him jumping on Noonan for what he did in spades.
 
I hear there are atheists who later become Christians. That must prove that athiests are wrong.

Isn't that right, Skeptic?
 
how can one deny god fantasies and not be wrong? :D
 
KingMerv00 said:
I hate to defend Skeptic, but why does this happen so often? Someone attacks a liberal and the very next post is a tu quoque on a conservative. (Or vice versa)

Can we get past this reflex?
Click to expand...

That's why I used the atheist/Christian example to point out the logical fallacy of Skeptic's argument.
 
I said from the start that Obama will go down in history as being as bad as Jimmy Carter. Not because of their faults, but because Americans refuse to face up to the challenges these two people faced up to.

The oil spill was hardly an 'unforced error'. Oil drilling is a private industry, and the government has no oil drilling expertise. The drilling rig was working in conditions that are known to be risky at that depth, but America must have it's oil. So it's drilling was allowed. Now Obama is to blame for that, apparently, and the technical difficulty of being able to do anything about that, his fault too. Yet if you look at the 60 minutes report, the reason it happened was sheer greed, the drilling was done in a high risk manner in an attempt to maximise profits.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I hate to defend Skeptic, but why does this happen so often? Someone attacks a liberal and the very next post is a tu quoque on a conservative. (Or vice versa)

Can we get past this reflex?
Click to expand...

That would be pearls before swine, really. Why don´t you ask "Skeptic" if he can get past his reflexes? Or, alternatively, for our collective edification, dig out the last thread in which he actually honestly debated a topic - any topic at all?
 
KingMerv00 said:
You just invoked another tu quoque didn't you? (I think that means we are up to a four quoque.)
Click to expand...

Lame pun aside, the problem is that, over and over *********** over again, someone poops on the floor, and anyone who remarks about the smell either risks being sanctioned for "personal attacks", or is hit with so-called "criticism" by someone who never seems to be bothered by dishonesty, bigotry or hatemongering, only by people who object to dishonesty, bigotry or hatemongering.
 
Chaos said:
Lame pun aside, the problem is that, over and over *********** over again, someone poops on the floor, and anyone who remarks about the smell either risks being sanctioned for "personal attacks", or is hit with so-called "criticism" by someone who never seems to be bothered by dishonesty, bigotry or hatemongering, only by people who object to dishonesty, bigotry or hatemongering.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have minded if someone called out Skeptic for bias and hypocrisy. If you are going to debate him however, at least do it right.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I wouldn't have minded if someone called out Skeptic for bias and hypocrisy. If you are going to debate him however, at least do it right.
Click to expand...

That, too, is pearls before swine. If you disagree, I challenge you to find one thread in which "Skeptic" actually honestly debated any topic.
 
Chaos said:
That, too, is pearls before swine. If you disagree, I challenge you to find one thread in which "Skeptic" actually honestly debated any topic.
Click to expand...

My complaint has less to do with Skeptic and more to do with the political forums in general. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty and I will object to bad logic anywhere I see it regardless of the target. Hopefully, my shrill whining will teach people how petty their logical fallacies are.

Yes, Skeptic is frustrating. If you don't believe I think so, look at this thread.
 
KingMerv00 said:
My complaint has less to do with Skeptic and more to do with the political forums in general. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty and I will object to bad logic anywhere I see it regardless of the target. Hopefully, my shrill whining will teach people how petty their logical fallacies are.

Yes, Skeptic is frustrating. If you don't believe I think so, look at this thread.
Click to expand...
"Someone attacks a liberal and the very next post is a tu quoque on a conservative. (Or vice versa)", but now you're saying both sides are guilty? Isn't that what negativ's post implied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom