Kevin's Watch

This is deeply ironic. A thread titled "The Tank Has Gone to Hell" starts off with interpersonal arguments and general bitching and slowly morphs into an educational discussion on the definitions of and distinctions between libertarianism, liberalism and socialism.

Cambo wrote:This is deeply ironic. A thread titled "The Tank Has Gone to Hell" starts off with interpersonal arguments and general bitching and slowly morphs into an educational discussion on the definitions of and distinctions between libertarianism, liberalism and socialism.

The Tank is autistic and unaware of what it does, though every now it realizes it is in a sort of hell. But part of being in hell is being unable to do anything about it.

I swear though, the direction of this thread does remind me of a strange creature caught up in one thing after another and inevitably losing interest in whatever currently has grasped it.

50 WGD says the thread will end in a discussion about Swiss cheese.

Cambo wrote:This is deeply ironic. A thread titled "The Tank Has Gone to Hell" starts off with interpersonal arguments and general bitching and slowly morphs into an educational discussion on the definitions of and distinctions between libertarianism, liberalism and socialism.

Nonsense, it was perfectly predictable.

--A

Cail wrote:The problem comes down to definitions.

Take the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. AA was killed by a US drone within the borders of Yemen. We are not at war with Yemen. There were no hearings on whether or not to kill AA, nor was there any trial or tribunal. The president, acting alone (his words), made the decision and ordered the military to carry out the strike.

This was done by a Democrat, traditionally thought of as liberal. The president's supporters overwhelmingly refer to themselves as liberals. But modern liberalism includes principles like nonviolence, justice, and respect for human rights.

Conversely, conservatives are seen as war hawks and cowboys, yet by the very name, the principles should be about retaining traditional Constitutional values.

There's an odd role-reversal going on when liberals defend the decision to invade other nations on a whim, and conservatives argue for military restraint.

This is a good point. I have actually noticed this over the last slew of presidents. Republicans are more willing to start a war, whereas Democrats tend to just semi-quietly take out some sumbitches. Didn't Clinton also dabble in the small operations to remove from the planet a few disreputables?

Cagliostro wrote:This is a good point?

Really? You can make a good point by mispresenting a fact and using it to support a biased conclusion? Good to know.

wayfriend wrote:

Cagliostro wrote:This is a good point?

Really? You can make a good point by mispresenting a fact and using it to support a biased conclusion?

Loaded question. In order to answer yes or no, we have to accept your assumptions, which you've made no attempt to justify or explain. Not only are loaded questions often logical fallacies, but also "attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda," or "having an unspoken and often emotive implication," or "asked merely to harass or upset the respondent with no intention of listening to their reply, or asked with the full expectation that the respondent will predictably deny it." link

Or in other words, the path to hell ....

I think Cag is perfectly justified in saying it was, anyway. As in, it was a good point that reminded him of something else that he has been thinking. At this, erm, juncture, I think everyone is just observating.

Of course, if it were me, I might, as Z. rightfully highlights, counter Cail's or Cag's observations with my own.

For instance, I'm liberal, probably much more than Obama is (registered with the Green Party yesterday - woo hoo!), yet I'm also pretty hawkish. I have no problem with the drone attacks... yet (though I admit the whole concept can be worrying). Does that violate my liberal principles? Well, probably. But luckily, before those kick in there's the whole "to thine own self be true" bit (though Polonius obviously wasn't familiar with American politics when it comes to the second half of that line ).

I don't think it would be good for anyone, much less the whole country, to always do something because that's what your political platform dictates. Sure, it may indicate that there are deficiencies in your platform that need to be resolved, but I don't think any reasonable person—philosopher, stateman, or bag boy—claims to have all the answers all the time.

Avatar wrote:

Cambo wrote:This is deeply ironic. A thread titled "The Tank Has Gone to Hell" starts off with interpersonal arguments and general bitching and slowly morphs into an educational discussion on the definitions of and distinctions between libertarianism, liberalism and socialism.

Nonsense, it was perfectly predictable.

--A

I meant ironic in the sense that the content of the thread ended up contradicting the title. Though I guess you could argue if one thing's predictable in the Tank, it's contradiction...

Good points, Syl. While I'm sure Cail was using the opportunity to take a jab at liberals for apparent hypocrisy (which he's just as likely to point out among Reps--in fact, in that same post), it was also stated within the context of how the meanings of these terms can shift, often to their exact opposite, which is relevant to the current thread drift tangent.

I'm not sure which part of the post WF objected to--either the evolution of terms or the Dems' hypocrisy or the Reps' hypocrisy (though I can guess)--but the question was phrased in a way that makes a "no" response to the allegation of misrepresenting of facts in order to make biased conclusions (something no one would actually support) simultaneously a "no" response to Cag's opinion that Cail's point was good. A very poorly worded question that disingenuously implies that's what Cag meant, while also asserting that Cail's position amounts to this without backing it up. Which is another way to say, "loaded question." [I'm trying out the Hashi Method of sticking to a critique of logical fallacies.]

Zarathustra wrote:Good points, Syl. While I'm sure Cail was using the opportunity to take a jab at liberals for apparent hypocrisy (which he's just as likely to point out among Reps--in fact, in that same post), it was also stated within the context of how the meanings of these terms can shift, often to their exact opposite, which is relevant to the current thread drift tangent.

I was jabbing at both sides equally. Liberals would have been horrified to hear about Bush's kill list(s), but they endorse Obama's. Conservatives had no issue with the WOT's lack of due process until Obama got elected.

Liberals should have loved Bush for his massive expansion of government and regulation. Conservatives should love Obama for his warmongering.


And so on, and so on.


Point being that the old definitions really don't work any more. I'm in no way a Democrat, but I'm far more liberal (in the classical sense) than most people here.

Zarathustra wrote:[I'm trying out the Hashi Method of sticking to a critique of logical fallacies.]

Well, if you like that, you'll LOVE his other work "The Hashi Method of Weightloss: Using your Branes to change your Shape."
....although I don't know if we need another Hashi...then you'd both always be right...so what happens when you disagree? The Tank will Go to Hell!

I gotta agree with Cag, though, Cail's was a good point in a couple ways...the main one being, [from that post and the one he just posted...despite the stereotypes] many labels/definitions are in a state of flux.

The Democrat's military aggressiveness is probably a factor of the Republican's (as Cail would note, unconstitutional) militarism. It is a necessary political position now to succeed in the US. Just as being willing to fight dirty during elections is. Just as the need to seem to be overtly religious is. Ironically, IMO, if the Democrats hewed closer to their liberal ideals (as outlined in the Constitution) they would quickly become sidelined politically. Similarily, if the Republican's were truly conservative of the Constitution they would also be sidelined. Unfortunately, ideals deform and degrade under the the pressure of politics and the need to be in power.

u.

Or perhaps, political rhetoric falls flat when politicians are faced with real world problems.

Don Exnihilote wrote:Or perhaps, political rhetoric falls flat when politicians are faced with real world problems.

I actually think things would be better IF that were true...
But it seems to me that the rhetoric soars in the face of real problems. [not necessarily soars in quality, mind...but definitely in the quantity produced]. Which wouldn't be so much a problem, just politicos being politicos, except the numbers of peeps listening and believing it seems to grow, too.

ussusimiel wrote:The Democrat's military aggressiveness is probably a factor of the Republican's (as Cail would note, unconstitutional) militarism. It is a necessary political position now to succeed in the US. Just as being willing to fight dirty during elections is. Just as the need to seem to be overtly religious is. Ironically, IMO, if the Democrats hewed closer to their liberal ideals (as outlined in the Constitution) they would quickly become sidelined politically. Similarily, if the Republican's were truly conservative of the Constitution they would also be sidelined. Unfortunately, ideals deform and degrade under the the pressure of politics and the need to be in power.

We saw a similar phenomenon back in the '90s regarding crime and punishment. Local politicians all over the country didn't want to appear to be soft on crime. As a result, we got into a crazy game of one-upmanship regarding jail terms that culminated in mandatory minimum sentences for ridiculous crimes. And now it's all but impossible to walk back those draconian punishments because no one wants to be seen as soft on crime.

Same thing's happened with our militaristic federal government. The GOP cast the Democrats as weak on national defense. As such, the Democrats have made it a point to blow up a whole lotta stuff and kile a whole lotta people.

Vraith wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote:Or perhaps, political rhetoric falls flat when politicians are faced with real world problems.

I actually think things would be better IF that were true...
But it seems to me that the rhetoric soars in the face of real problems. [not necessarily soars in quality, mind...but definitely in the quantity produced]. Which wouldn't be so much a problem, just politicos being politicos, except the numbers of peeps listening and believing it seems to grow, too.

I think if there was a way Obama could have closed Gitmo and ended the WoT without ending up with the blame for some future catastrophe, he would have done so.

Don Exnihilote wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote:Or perhaps, political rhetoric falls flat when politicians are faced with real world problems.

I actually think things would be better IF that were true...
But it seems to me that the rhetoric soars in the face of real problems. [not necessarily soars in quality, mind...but definitely in the quantity produced]. Which wouldn't be so much a problem, just politicos being politicos, except the numbers of peeps listening and believing it seems to grow, too.

I think if there was a way Obama could have closed Gitmo and ended the WoT without ending up with the blame for some future catastrophe, he would have done so.

I believe he could have done so, if he'd shown some principle and leadership. Unfortunately for us, he's lacking in both.

Had Obama actually fought for the things he talked about during the campaign (closing Gitmo, repealing the Patriot Act, ending our foreign wars, etc) I would have happily voted for him this time around, even had he not been successful.

Instead he's ramped up all of GWB's poor policies and added a bunch of new poor policies.

Well, as I'm a Nixonian realist adulterated with a dose of messianic neoconservatism, it's a safe bet that our disagreement on this issue is relatively durable.

Vraith wrote:Well, if you like that, you'll LOVE his other work "The Hashi Method of Weightloss: Using your Branes to change your Shape."
....although I don't know if we need another Hashi...then you'd both always be right...so what happens when you disagree? The Tank will Go to Hell!

*laugh* That is brilliant--"Using Branes to change your Shape".

*************

There are various legal decisions and explanations written to justify the Administration's use of what they call "targeted killing" and how that differs from "assassination". These justifications amount to verbal prestidigitation--the fact remains that the Administration is sentencing people to death with no evidence and no trial. I suspect that if Bush had done this that the people who were already calling him a war criminal and demanding that he be arrested would have doubled or tripled their efforts; however, this current President gets a free pass on this simply because he is not Bush.

The Administration also says that all people killed by drones are militants until proven otherwise after the fact. Have they shown that any person killed was, upon further investigation, not a militant? If at least one person has been cleared of being a militant then the Administration is killing foreign non-combatant civilians with neither evidence nor a trial. I am certain that this violates at least one Geneva Convention, presuming Pakistan is a signee. It also puts us on the same moral ground as the terrorists themselves, who also kill non-combatant civilians with neither evidence nor trial.

Suppose your local police department kills someone while looking for a bank robber but after the fact determine that the person they killed was not who they wanted. Do the police get a free pass or do they get investigated for breaking both laws and their internal policies?

What happens if we discover an active Al Qeuda cell in Canada? We didn't ask Pakistan to launch drones into their country. Are we simply going to launch drones into Canada to take out the terrorists and defend our actions by saying "self-defense in response to 11 Sept"?

It seems like I am harping on this issue and that wouldn't be inaccurate--I am harping on it, but rightfully so. Nothing else Obama has done, including Obamacare, is as risky and dangerous as drone strikes.