Thursday, May 22, 2008
Oops!
Tom says that "we" only like elections when the people "we" like win them. A fair point, right? But does he not realize that by making such a comment (legitimate as it may be), he is also criticizing Barack Obama? This, I'm saying, in that during his recent press-conference (you know, the one where he responded to Bush's appeasement charge), Obama seemed highly critical of Bush's having allowed elections to take place in Gaza - you know, being that it was Hamas who emerged victorious there. Obama's point was that without a firm groundwork of economic and political institutions, elections themselves are just as likely as not to have unforeseen (possibly deleterious) consequences. Elections alone, in other words, are not necessarily equivalent with democracies as we currently know them.........................................Hm, that actually sounds pretty good, too. Too bad for Tom that he had to blow his wad like that - not thinking that maybe he was hurting his candidate, too. Tsk, Tsk...........................................P.S. It also makes me wonder what Obama would have said about those proposed Vietnamese elections of 1956, whether or not they had the necessary institutions, etc..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Can you show one place where I have endorsed any candidate for this election?
If not your being quite disingenuous in your post here aren't you?
So you're going to vote for McCain then. Interesting.
Tom says that "we" only like elections when the people "we" like win them. A fair point, right? But does he not realize that by making such a comment (legitimate as it may be), he is also criticizing Barack Obama? This, I'm saying, in that during his recent press-conference (you know, the one where he responded to Bush's appeasement charge), Obama seemed highly critical of Bush's having allowed elections to take place in Gaza - you know, being that it was Hamas who emerged victorious there. Obama's point was that without a firm groundwork of economic and political institutions, elections themselves are just as likely as not to have unforeseen (possibly deleterious) consequences. Elections alone, in other words, are not necessarily equivalent with democracies as we currently know them.........................................Hm, that actually sounds pretty good, too. Too bad for Tom that he had to blow his wad like that - not thinking that maybe he was hurting his candidate, too. Tsk, Tsk......."
How do you KNOW Obama is Tom's candidate, I dont think I ever heard him say so............secondly I believe Obama was focusing on GWB's hippocrissy for sceeching about democracy and elections then when they dont like the results of those elections attempting to remove said elected officials.........rather than actually focusing on the elections or elected officials themselves.
And if that is the case that strengthens rather than undercuts and weakens both Obama's and Tom's arguments.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
So you're going to vote for McCain then. Interesting."
Sorry I didnt read the posts, but that only shows i was correct.
There you go again constructing other people's arguments for them and pretending you can read their minds...............THATS why people on Lydia's site questioned your legitimacy, not because of what you said which many might find much to agree with but because of your CLAIMING to be able to read peoples mind and tell others what they think and who they support after only knowing them for hours or days.
"So you're going to vote for McCain then. Interesting."
I never said that either.
I like how you, just like Bill O'Reilly, are so quick to assign other people their opinions and positions, heck of a job there.
That comment is by me
So, Tom, you're not supporting McCain or Obama? Looking at Bob Barr, the Libertarian, I gather.
This one gets a little convuluted, Mike. Bear with me. Tom was being critical of U.S. foreign policy, saying that we only support those elections that please us. It's a good point. I tend to agree with it. Obama, though, he makes a point that sounds antithetical to what Tom is saying; i.e., that maybe elections aren't ALWAYS a good idea - a pragmatic perspective, in other words. I tend to agree with that, as well. Tom doesn't support Obama? Well, I'll be damned. As for Lydia, Mike, they visciously swift-boated McCain. Just like the right did to Max Cleland and John Kerry. And, yes, I was just as viscious when it happened to them. I'm consistent.
"So, Tom, you're not supporting McCain or Obama? Looking at Bob Barr, the Libertarian, I gather."
Never said that either, but keep spewing like Bill O'Rielly does when you don't know.
"I'm consistent."
Far from it.
1) You despise Bush (can't say I blame you). 2) McCain is considered by many to be an extension of Bush. 3)Hillary is essentially cooked. And you're not going to vote for Obama (you haven't exactly denied it, have you?)? I guess my syllogism was off. Dude, my goal here is to show you how untidy and ambiguous this stuff is. It isn't as cut and dry as you seem to think (oh, if we had only let the Vietnamese have their election). And, yes, I am fair. If you go through my nearly 300 posts, you see that, if anything, I've been harder on the conservatives. It's only since I've been sampling these other blogs (Lydia Cornell, Existentialist Cowboy) that I've notice that the left can be just as vile.
"Dude, my goal here is to show you how untidy and ambiguous this stuff is."
Too bad you actually know so little about it really.
Look, if you're going to continue to impugn my integrity, just don't bother, O.K.? Find another chump to belittle.
"Find another chump to belittle."
What's the matter don't like being told the truth?
You don't know very much about what you spout about?
You remind me more and more of Bill O'Rielly every post.
Your truth. And I haven't called you names.
I haven't "called" you names either, I just remarked how similar you and Bill O'Rielly, someone you demonize and attack, are in quite a lot of how you operate.
Post a Comment