World’s Stupidest Argument

I think we should all just calm down and have some tea.

i wish you’d reserve some extra criticisms for newt. i know you touched up on him the other day but i just find him exceedingly bereft of any kind of statemanship, grace and thought. Who the hell tries to raise a firestorm while we’re dealing with a hostage situation abroad that could in all likeliness result in an american death and a traumatized nation in the depth of a recession? he was just shamelessly positioning his party for profiteering off of an american death. and you only hear muted criticisms of him in the media, as if nothing had happened. when people do such things, and they have a right to, they should take the virulent criticisms just as they had tremendous upside to gain if their wishes came true. srry for the naked feelings. it’s just beyond me.

Joe
.
You are partly right but its not just that Republicans which are getting fewer by the day don’t like him, its also because Democrats whose numbers are growing everyday LOVE the guy. His 88% approval rating from his own party was higher than even Reagan had with the Republicans at the same time in his administration. Besides that the Independents have a very high approval rating for President Obama. Put it to you this way, President Obama could solve the housing crisis, financial crisis, give universal health care win both the war in Af/Pak negotiate an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement and still 25% of the country wouldn’t approve and those are today’s Republicans. Thats what you call a “fringe” party.

Joe Klein says;
“It shows a profound lack of class or grace, but then, that’s no surprise with these guys, is it?”
.
The same “class and grace” Obama demonstrated while overseas at his G-20, blaming Bush at every turn for all of the world’s current crises. Yea right Joe!
.
Obama has blamed and accused Bush for every one of his current failures and gaffs. Even Biden can’t keep his mouth shut despite the continuous chidings of his own staff.
.
My question is when will Obama take on the “problems” and start to do something about them all? When will Obama start taking responsibility and stop the blame game, and put America’s interests first?

I just love it when the liberals try to use hyperbol;
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx
.
Yes that is ONLY 62%

Rusty obviously didn’t watch Obama’s press conference yesterday…

Bush was a very competent president. Obama blames Bush for everything 24/7. So much so he has done nothing else in the last 8 weeks but give speech after speech blaming Bush.

Of course Rove, Cheney et all are going to defend the Bush presidency and continually gripe about everything Obama does. Rove and company were the Bush presidency. They are defending themselves, their decisions, their policies. They aren’t exactly un-biased sources.

George W. Bush succeeded Clinton and set new standards for political polarization, with a median 64-point difference between Republicans’ and Democrats’ ratings of him, including record 83-point party divides in the fall of 2004.

.
Just FYI

Calm down. Have some tea. There’s a million bags left.

jwindenver Says:
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Rusty obviously didn’t watch Obama’s press conference yesterday…
.
Yes, consumer confidence is really taking off since Obama has put his policies in place…
.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/04/14/afx6290570.html

It’s over. Been found out.
.
FreedomWorks Finally Gets Around To It, Warns Protestors Of ‘Teabag’ Double Meaning.
.
The term “teabagging” has strong sexual connotations. Be wary of anyone with a camera asking you if you are a “teabagger” or if you enjoy “teabagging” or similar leading questions – they are trying to make a fool of you.
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/freedomworks-finally-gets-around-to-it.php?ref=fp2

This economy was a long time in the making. I think these polls show that most Americans understand that and are willing to give Obama more then just a couple of months to fix it.

Myopia and greed of the Reagan era, huh? Funny how you only discovered those qualities after this depression. Hindsight is a real kicker isn’t it?
-
Also funny how eight years of Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with “myopia and greed.” No, he was obviously at the helm of anti-big evil corporations, so I can see why you left him out. /sarc.
-
Oh, by the way, declaring “my turn now” isn’t a great way of combating greed. In fact, the very idea of Obama turning the country away from “myopia and greed” is ridiculous.

And this will perhaps fall into one of the 10 “World’s Stupidest”…
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/15/homeland-security-memo-right-wing-radicals
.
I guess when the military didn’t clap much at Obama’s last visit to Iraq, he got pi$$ed. He is now warning against returning military and you should be wary. “They might just join a bunch of skinheads”…

Why does Obama hate our veterans so much that he wants to associate them with groups like Stormfront? Oh, that is the new democrat party line. If you can’t come up with a logical argument, call them a right-wing extremists or RACIST!!!

First Joe, “cockups” ? man, I was hoping for you to go with something like, ‘the only thing Rush and Co ever did was repeatedly teabag the country’ But still, well put.

Gunny, hilarious, I’m amazed they didn’t get into more details because, as they say in the final point in bold to all those teabaggers “…you are uneducated and ignorant.”

Do you think they really wanted to bold that part of the sentence? Hmm, maybe…

Joe Klein:
.
Why is “polarization” a bad thing?
.
Was Martin Luther King Jr. not also a “polarizing” figure?

Stay classy teabaggers
.
http://twitpic.com/3cy4e

But Rusty, you actually are a racist.

Mr Klein,

You said “They ran the country like thugs, and thugs they remain.” This is why I could not stand Bush and his gang.

I am a Canadian. You can say that it is none of my business. I do not mind!

Rustydog:
.
You should probably read this before you accuse everyone here of indiscriminately calling you a racist instead of arguing the merits of your propositions in good faith.

Not very bright tea baggers
.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20000

“I should add the fact that the alleged polarization mostly results from the fact that Obama gets extremely low ratings from self-identified Republicans, who constitute an extremist shard of a party at this point, is a badge of honor.”
.
OK, Joe. Now, can you take it the next step and inform everyone why self-identified Republicans see things so differently than the rest of us? When you have the courage to lay the blame where it belongs (Rove and Wehner, Kristol and Krauthammer are easy, cheap shots), on all of right-wing media and the lies and hate they’ve been spewing against government, liberals, and Democrats for going on something like 30 years, then you’ll be doing your job. The fact that those “self-identified Republicans” and their fellow travelers, 1) represent something like a quarter of the American public, 2) are functionally insane based upon what they believe, 3) get their beliefs directly from the right-wing propaganda machine (that includes FOX, the NRA, Heritage, Clearchannel, the rest of the GOP and the people who fund all of it) and 4) contain nearly all gun-happy and violence-advocating, anti-government extremist groups, represent a real and present danger to the republic. Some of us think that’s quite a story.

I’ll bet that Obama will be even more polarizing when there are only 15% self-identified repuglicans. Or 10%. At that point Obama will have 90% popularity among the 60% of the population Dem identified, 75% among the 30% independants, and 0% among the repugs. How polarizing is that!
.
It could all start to change, however, if he decides to punt on this.

stuartzechman Says:
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Rustydog:
.
You should probably read this before you accuse everyone here of indiscriminately calling you a racist instead of arguing the merits of your propositions in good faith.
.
stuart,
Consider it read, and I will apologize for bringing I am assuming heritage and Joe Kleins to the political discussion. But, it irks me to no end that anyone would believe Iran would not blow Israel off the map if they were given the choice to do so.
.
But, I do see your point and apologize. Now, if you can direct your outrage towards some of your other co-commenters, and stop the insanity of calling every one of an opposing opinion to the liberal agenda a “racist”, then I shall to let this drop. But, as long as the likes of Paul Dirks, singlewhite, and 53_3 continue their un-founded accusations, then I too will be just as provacative.

“Why does Obama hate our veterans so much that he wants to associate them with groups like Stormfront? Oh, that is the new democrat party line. If you can’t come up with a logical argument, call them a right-wing extremists or RACIST!!!”
.
Rusty-Obama didn’t prepare the report. The DHS did, as it is their job to do. Its what your hero George Bush created them to do. Extremist groups will attempt to recruit not only veterans but police officers and politicians. Foreign intellgence agencies attempt to recruit CIA, FBI, NYPD, UN and other officials too. So do crime oganizations. I hope you are grown up to know that a frank assessment is not always going to be pretty.

shepherdwong:
Right-wing media bias like this:
-
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/cnn_reporter_at_chicago_tea_party_its_anticnn_since_this_is_highly_promoted_by_the_rightwing_conservative_network_fox_114141.asp
-
gysgt213:
When did conjecture become a frank assessment?

SZ, I said: Trying to differentiate between a troll and a rightest is like trying to differentiate between a hobo and a vagabond. Sure there may be slight differences, but there both out on the street.
.
You said. So: If the rightist’s goal is to damage the forum by calling Obama a socialist, then they are a troll, and should be ignored. If the rightist’s aim is to tell others about their sincere belief in idiotic talk radio fantasy by calling Obama a socialist, then they’re just a rightist.
.
So we pretty much agree on this point, wouldn’t you say?
.
Also if you have the stomach for it, please look for a small clarification on another point here: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/10/krauthammer-desperately-seeking-nail/?apage=7#comment-57977

“When did conjecture become a frank assessment?”
.
Good point yoshi. Why don’t you explain to the class why the DHS is completely off base.

[...] Joe Klein, unplugged: [...]

Perhaps yoshi could start with the fact that the DHS report was requested by Bush: Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’
.
Yep, that would be a good place to start: HERRIDGE: Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.

Rustydog:
.
I do see your point and apologize.
.
Sometimes it’s difficult for me to admit when I’m wrong, especially when what I’m wrong about isn’t necessarily the real point of my argument. It’s encouraging that somebody with whom I disagree mightily has less of a problem apologizing than I sometimes have.
.
Good for you. Now let’s move on to the real, substantial disagreements between us. I truly think that some of your ideas are f*cking crazy, but we’re both Americans, and that counts for something. Debate between citizens is good for our country –it’s how we get to the truth. I think that the founders saw it that way, too. As long as the point of why we’re talking is to understand reality –and not just to cheer for Our Side, and jeer at the others’– good will come of further discussion. Knowing what conservatives are actually like, and what you actually think is important for liberals (and centrists), otherwise we’re setting ourselves up for our own unanticipated encounters with reality someday.
.
Now, if you can direct your outrage towards some of your other co-commenters, and stop the insanity of calling every one of an opposing opinion to the liberal agenda a “racist”, then I shall to let this drop.
.
LOL.
.
I think people around here can tell you how much I’m ready to go to the mattresses over what I think is sometimes simple name-calling on the part of my fellow liberals (instead of critical thinking).
.
I don’t think that liberalism as a perspective from a set of political principles is done developing, and that we need badly to criticize ourselves, and to separate political objectives –especially short-term ones– from the hard work of cultivating our ideas and practices into better ones.
.
After all, that’s what liberalism is about: always developing toward better ways of doing things and thinking about the world, and not remaining stuck in the mythological past like conservatives, or stuck in the political present like centrists.
.
Of course it’s insane to reflexively demonize your political opponents by calling them racists at the drop of the hat. I would hope that everyone who cares about more than shaming people who don’t think too much into going along with a liberal agenda can agree with that. Sometimes it works politically, and desperate or unscrupulous people who believe that the ends justify the means will be wrong like that. Sometimes people just want to believe the worst about their political enemies because they aren’t actually secure in their own ideas. Sometimes people are tribal.
.
True liberals aren’t about any of that, Rustydog. You will know real liberals by the experience of scrupulous fairness in your dealings with them, but also by an unhesitating will to tell the truth. Sometimes that will to speak up for what people believe is the truth overcomes the will to fairness, but we’re human.
.
So liberals are about fairness, truth and the willingness to have our ideas challenged in order to make them better. That’s why I’m willing to argue with you in good faith, Rusty. That’s also why I’m arguing with the centrist Joe Klein.

Joe Klein, like it or not, that “greed of the 1980s” that everyone always talks about also helped create 20 million new jobs and cut inflation down from double digit figures.

Just FYI
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/obtained-dhs-memo-warning-of-left-wing-extremists/
.
And allow me to point out that both reports were initated by Bush, not President Obama. So much fail.

apollyon
.
Do you realize who cut inflation during the Reagan years? Paul Volker. Guess who he is working for now.
.
I would love for you to post a link to the 20 million jobs info though.

Also funny how eight years of Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with “myopia and greed.”
.
I have argued in many places including here:
http://phd9.blogspot.com/2009/03/random-comments.html
here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phd9/3409444758/
and here:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/14/the-obama-speech/#comment-57687
That the harmful effects of Reaganomics continued unabated during the Clinton years. Certainly any reckoning with our foreign oil dependence or artificial inflation of asset values or the growing wealth gap was put off indefinitely.
.
Why then does anyone think that pointing and saying “Yeah – but Clinton” mean anything whatsoever. Obama has 39 Years of damage to undo – not just 8.

gysgt:
For the reasons outlined here, namely substituting Tim McVeigh for any relevant statistics.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/14/american-legion-to-napolitano-apologize/
-
In fact, just read the first sentence of the report…
-
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues.
-
Totally, beautifully evidence-free. Yet the title presents a conclusion based on, apparently, a house of cards…Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling
Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
-
Now you might say that this is about the Alex Jones crowd, so it doesn’t matter. Unfortunately, the report’s title and criteria are quite vague.
-
Critera: “[Extremist groups are] those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
-
Joined with the title, this report will surely be used to equate non-terrorist right wingers with the conspiracy crowd. (one characteristic of the groups – buying more guns than usual) It will probably be mentioned in the same sentence as Glenn Beck, etc., and the smears will continue. Coupled with accusing veterans of being a high-risk group, also without data, and you have a pretty irresponsible report. Remember…evidence free.
-
If I had to sum it up, the overarching problem is that the report tends to equate increasing right wing momentum with terrorism in tenuous ways, thereby lending credence to the HuffPo/Kos morons who pin tragic shooting deaths on Beck and Limbaugh.

Just a minor point. The report is about what extremist groups are likely to attempt to do (recruit members of the military because of their skill sets). Its not a report seeking to assess what returning vets might do (join extremist groups.)
.
So unless its Rusty, et al., intention to defend extremist groups and their right to recruit, I don’t know what the problem is.

It did NOT say veterans were a high risk group. Please don’t just repeat some sh*t yoshi, you have shown you are much smarter than that. The document says the veterans are in high demand by the extremist groups. They are trying really hard to get Iraq veterans in their fold not the other way around. The damn document is online so please just go read it for yourself.

“Right-wing media bias like this:”
.
I specifically didn’t mention CNN as part of the right-wing propaganda machine (I notice you don’t claim it doesn’t exist) but, on any given day, I can fine plenty of right-wing lies catapulted by CNN. Ever hear of a guy named Lou Dobbs? Anyway, the fact that the right-wing FOX-propaganda-fed crazies got too crazy even for that particular CNN reporter really reinforces my point.

PD:
My comment was on Klein’s interesting habit of blaming Reagan for everything based on intangibles like the culture of “myopia and greed.” He also refuses to recognize that further deregulation that may have influenced the crisis occurred under…Clinton. In short, this is a bipartisan failure, but Klein has a terribly specific memory, so that won’t get in the way of his “journalism.”
-
As to Bush’s ordering of the report…this is about content.

Obama has 39 Years of damage to undo – not just 8.
.
Exactly, which is why having Larry Summers as chief economic adviser is so troubling. At least Greenspan admitted he was wrong.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
.

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 9
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
.
— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

.

SG:
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
-
“Military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities” may potentially emerge as “lone wolf extremist capable of carrying out violent attacks.” This identifies risk. Why else would they insert the qualifier “facing significant challenges reintegrating?” The only reason that phrase is in the report is because, presumably, veterans facing those challenges would be at greater risk of radicalization.
-
Remember, the report is all about “potential.”
-
shepherdwong, that was an onsite reporter, not somebody paid to give his opinion in (supposedly) entertaining fashion. Also, if you remove Fox from the equation, the others aren’t real big in the MSM. And Fox is recent. It hasn’t existed for 30 years prior.

This is pure poetry:
.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/15/151342/823?detail=f

They think Obama is more polarizing than Bush? They need to take to the streets and protest. In 2000 Bush promised to come to Washington and be a uniter. Technically, he did that. He united most of the country against his party and their philosophy. I give him credit for that. I still believe that Obama would not have been elected if Dubya and his flunkies hadn’t destroyed the republican brand. For that, there will always be a part of me that thanks them. I had always thought that if I lived to see a black man elected president that it would be someone like a Colin Powell. Conservative, military background and with a history of being on the world stage. Bush turned his party into a joke that glorified stupidity, ignorance and made science seem like the problem. He may have set his party back a generation, but he advanced ours by at least that much. Bless you numbnuts.

sgwhite: What are you saying? That the president isn’t responsible for actions that people underneath him (even if indirectly) do?
.
That argument sure didn’t work for Bush in regards to torture, AS WELL IT SHOULDN’T HAVE. And yes, Reagan did re-appoint him in that decade, so it’s unfair to say he was just a holdover.
.
As for the numbers, what you said seems to imply that you don’t think there was substantial job growth in the 80s. Really? It is a fact that job growth dramatically increased after the 1982 recession (through the 1991 one). Here’s a chart that gives rates:
.
http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/R/P/unemployment_rate_annotated.jpg
.
I found the 20 million number I was referring to originally at the Bureau of Labor Statistics a while ago, I can’t find it now (as you can imagine, there’s a lot to sift through there) but if I do I’ll post it. If that chart, coupled with conventional wisdom and any other unemployment stats on this period are any indication, I’m obviously on the right track. Also, GDP nearly DOUBLED during this time (1982-1991).

Yoshi, I’m not buying it. If the best you can do with your argument is reach for a Democratic administration to hang it on, you’re talking to the wrong crowd.

Yoshi:
.
this is a bipartisan failure
.
This is undoubtedly true, but you’re missing something.
.
Sure, it’s a failure of conservatives (Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush) and centrists (Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton) who are both Republicans and Democrats, but it’s not a failure of liberals. That’s why Klein doesn’t like to mention the Clinton Administration’s role. It’s a failure of centrists like himself.
.
Also, the fact that the financial system’s catastrophe was brought on by both Republican and Democratic administration (or lack thereof) –that it was a “bipartisan failure”– brings up an even more salient point: this catastrophe, like so many others, was a failure of bipartisanship.
.
It was bipartisanship, the centrists’ political holy grail by which they know the perfection of any proposal, that caused the government to pursue failed economic policies with respect to the financial sector decade after decade.
.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the law that repealed protections against the kind of financial services “innovations” was a triumph of bipartisanship.

Yoshi — I’m afraid you would have a more legitimate reason for protesting against a blame Reagan for everything campaign if it had not been for the GOP touting all things good as belonging to Reagan. The fact of the matter is just as for many years Democrats were framed as new dealers despite Roosevelt’s death many years ago, conservatives are considered Reaganites because they subscribe to a mindset that is attributable to him.
.
During the 2008 campaign Clinton took great offense because Obama described the Reagan presidency as transformative in a way that the Clinton presidency was not. This means that the political paradigm went from new deal to corporate conservative envisioned by Reagan. Even Clinton’s presidency was forced to recognize the paradigm shift that brought us free trade, welfare reform, and additional deregulation. Ys Clinton was a Democrat but his policies conformed to the new conservative shift. Now if you want to disavow Reagan’s legacy from the discussion, but I doubt if many establishment Republicans will follow suit.
.
Of course, personally, as I look around at the ultimate consequences of corporate conservatism I think there is very little about Reaganism to celebrate, but you have a right to your own opinion. Your problem is that you want only want to link to Reaganism when discussing positive outcomes of conservatism, but you can’t have it both ways. If Reagan is responsible for ushering in a conservative era, then that means good or bad conservatism is on him.

A federal grand jury indicted a former Camp Lejeune Marine on Wednesday on charges that he threatened the life of Barack Obama, the U.S. Attorney’s Office confirmed today.
.
Kody Brittingham, 20, formerly a lance corporal with 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, was accused of making threats against Obama while he was president-elect, said Robin Zier, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office for the eastern district of North Carolina.
.
Brittingham was arrested by the Jacksonville Police Department on breaking and entering charges in mid-December 2008.
.
Naval investigators discovered a journal allegedly written by Brittingham in his barracks after his arrest by civilian authorities in December. The journal contained plans on how to kill the president, as well as white supremacist material, a federal law enforcement official said.
.
http://www.enctoday.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=62658

Conservatives accuse liberals of hating the military whenever they protest politician’s decision to go to war.
.
Conservatives accuse liberals of hating gun owners because they want to regulate the dispersal of assault weapons.
.
Now, supposedly this hate is the motivation for suggesting that some returning soldiers (those without support systems, may suffer from ptsd or traumatic brain injury) may be more vulnerable to the recruitment rhetoric of right wing extremists.
.
Yet I don’t hear liberal accusing conservatives of hating America when they threaten to secede or call for armed revolution.
.
I don’t hear liberals accusing conservatives of hating America when they call for the presidents policies to fail.
.
Timothy McVeigh is clearly the profile that concerns DHS and it’s not like it hasn’t happened before. So should I just call conservatives stupid for refusing to acknowledge the possibility that given the current circumstances this kind of thing could happen again.

FT:
I reiterate, I am trying to bite Klein for selective memory. I am not trying to make a summary. But it seems I will have to, so…
-
Dee:
For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter how many GOP candidates latch onto Reagan’s mythical coattails by declaring how he would endorse them, because that doesn’t affect the economy.
-
So let me assign blame:
-
The Reagan Administration, for popularizing the idea of supply side
-
The Clinton Administration, for continuing with the supply side
-
The W Administration, for lax regulation
-
Oh, and idiots in Congress. One of whom twalks wike this.
-
Now who deserves the lion’s share of the blame? I say the last two, because in the technical dissections of this mess, nobody can point to any specific act by Reagan or his appointees. They can, and will, however, point to tangible actions from the rest.
-
Reagan is blamed for creating the “culture” that created the beast. Fair enough – deregulation was the drumbeat. But, as with most plans, the outcome is all in the execution. We’re not a dominant socialist economy because, to a certain extent, we believe in deregulation. Finding the line, though, is hard. In the last decade and a few years, we failed to find the line. But Reagan was out of office at the time. So if everyone could refrain from stacking most of the blame on a dead guy that would probably have done something smarter instead, that would be fantastic.
-
gysgt213:
Is that a commentary on what we were discussing before? And by the way, do you see how the report assesses veterans as a risk group for domestic terrorism?

Excuse me, the last three.
-
SZ, it is a failure of bipartisanship. But if you look to partisanship, you will find a ton of failures there too. We need bipartisanship – the only question is what people mean when they say bipartisanship.
-
I think it means being reasonable, respectful, and willing to give the ideas of the other side a fair shake without consulting the talking points memo first or knee-jerking to party line. I think we could use that. I believed Obama thought so too, but it appears the whole president-in-crisis thing is going to his head.

Dee, Tim McVeigh is one out of 42 million veterans, as the head of the American legion put it. The report simply tosses out a statistics based assertion without the statistics to back it up. It’s pure conjecture.
-
Replace veterans with Muslims in the line from the report and see how correct that sounds. Offensive? Of course. Evidently those who were trying to convince me DHS wasn’t saying what it said recognized that. If you interpret it otherwise, let’s stop screaming bloody murder about classifying different risk statuses to racial groups. After all, conjecture can go quite a long way.

Oh please yoshi, how can I take what you say seriously when you equate someone’s inherited characteristics like race, gender and in most cases religion with a classification that connotes a specific skill set and set of circumstances. Why is it anymore of an insult to say we should pay extra attention to returning vets without a support system and are having difficulty readjusting because they are at risk for extremist recruitment than to say they are at risk for suicide, etc.
.
The bottom line is that some of our soldiers come home and don’t have a supportive family structure and some are suffering from ptsd and are having difficulty adjusting. The report is not demonizing these vets. The report is saying that some of these right wing extremist recognize that some of our soldiers are emotionally wounded, making them more vulnerable and the extremists may try to seek them out to take advantage of this extra vulnerability.
.
It’s no different than gang bangers who try to recruit kids who are more vulnerable because there is no father at home and the family is poor and there are needs going unmet. These kids desperately want to belong to something and end up recruited into a gang.

This is a very reasonable, rational, logical blog post. I fully agree, although all of the right wingnuts aren’t even mentioned. Pat Robertson comes to mind as I just watched his clown show last night on the Family Channel (ABC). He covered all the rwnut issues and promoted the tea parties.
.
Unfortunately, the blog is spitting against the wind, preaching to the choir. The real people who need pay attention have no reason, no rational thought, no logic. Keep it up anyway.

I wish the Joe Klein who wrote this blog post, had shown his face more often during the Bush era.

Nevertheless, thanks for telling it like it truly is, Joe. More like this and I think we’ll be able to find it within ourselves to forgive you for the FISA business.

yoshi
.
Sorry for responding late but a few things here
.
1. You are conflating the outline with its intent. The heading that referred to soldiers coming hom increasing the threat was a general sentence. Just as the fear of gun bans and the problems with the economy were. Then each issue was fully explained before the heading. Its clear that the report is more concerned with the extremist groups targeting returning soldiers than they are the soldiers themselves.
.
2. I believe we engaged in a conversation not too long ago about how white supremecists are now trying to get a foot hold in the military after 9-11 and because the standards have been lowered to allow more recruits in. It only makes sense then that some of them will be recruiting fellow soldiers during and after their time in Iraq. That doesn’t mean anybody is going to fall for it. But it does mean those returning troops will be targeted.
.
3. That part of the report isn’t even about profiling veterans or extremists for that matter. What its about is alerting law enforcement officers to the fact that if these groups are successful in recruiting any military guys then its likely they will get the military guy to teach them combat tactics which means they are likely to be a lot more dangerous. Imagine if those police officers who went to arrest Richard Poplawski had known he had ties to Stormfront which is one of the major recruiters of returning soldiers. Doesn’t mean they necessarily would have lived but they sure as sh*t would have had their guard up more.
.
4 One of the major employers of veterans is law enforcement and Homeland Security. Do you really think they were trying to insinuate that people just like them were likely to be terrorists? Come on now. This sh*t was over blown from the start and I know you see at this point that its much ado about nothing. Don’t get stuck just trying to be right. There was nothing wrong or specious about this report nor was there anything wrong or specious about the left wing extremist report.
.
5 By the way black folks have been racially profile offically and so have Muslims so your analogy falls pretty flat. I have been stopped for Driving While Black too many times to recount and in the past it was official policy. And I am sure that right now people who look like they are of Middle Eastern decent have it worse than me. And don’t get me started on FISA. Kinda ridiculous not to complain about all that but then complain about a report that you yourself make the case doesn’t specifically target anybody.

Dee, you have just served up a big slice of conjecture yourself. You are correct when you say that some soldiers do not have supportive family structures and some are suffering from PTSD, and the report is correct when it says that some soldiers may suffer difficulty readjusting to their home communities as a result of this or other difficulties.
-
However, where you (and the report, as well) diverge from these known facts is your implicit suggestion that just because a soldier is having difficulty at home or struggling with a traumatic experience means that he or she is more likely to be seduced into a group that destroys what he once was protecting. That is high handedness in the extreme. You are armchair quarterbacking a psychological issue and encompassing every returning member of the military in a risk group as a result.
-
Your attack of my comparison is also insufficient, because you first assume that 1) racial groups contain people with diverse skill sets and circumstances (because these things are often inherited) and 2) that the military does not contain that sort of diversity. This is precisely the difference between the military and racial/religious groups that you have highlighted, and it is a completely false difference. For the same reason that members of ethnic groups and religions have completely different circumstances even while belonging to the same institution, so do members of the military. Likewise, within the military, there are incredibly different skill sets, jobs, and cultures. Even a casual look at our armed forces will testify to this fact. Bottom line:
-
Members of the military are not made by cookie cutters, and justifying their inclusion in a risk group misses this fundamental point.
-
Your gang banger analogy suffers from the same kind of presumption. Yes, why not classify a good deal of returning veterans with difficulties as the same, psychologically, as tweeners who end up in gangs as a result of wanting to belong to something? A need for belonging would obviously make vets more likely to attack their own country.
-
You also fundamentally misunderstand what the report is saying. The report is not calling for a reform of the support system for vets – that couldn’t be further from its purpose. It is identifying vets as a group of POTENTIAL TERRORIST RECRUITS at a greater risk of becoming terrorists than the population at large. WITH NO EVIDENCE. NONE.
-
Of course, nobody discounts the probability that a McVeigh could arise from the ranks and make an attack. But one has to realize that there are crazy people all over the place, and the military is no exception to that. Just look at how many shooting sprees in the last few years were caused by vets – almost none. DHS needs to stop telling vets what they’re supposedly at risk for and pay attention to real policy.

Having been around when the grassroots Republican efforts in the early ’90s were in place, I don’t have one bit of doubt about the veracity of that report.
.
I saw what happened before, during and after TV blew up ERM. It was not a pretty sight…

SG:
-
1: Their citation of McVeigh (which was one of the only shreds of evidence in the entire report) was anything but general. You also cannot change the fundamental implication with any wordplay whatsoever: veterans with problems are more vulnerable to right wing recruitment.
-
2: It was probably with someone else, because I don’t recall it, but white supremacists recruit everywhere – and the sentence cited had to do with veterans who had problems reengaging, not veterans in contact with racists.
-
3: This isn’t about telling police officers to keep their guard up. This is a terrorist threat assessment. Moreover, the only sign that the officers coming for Poplawski could have identified was that he was dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps, which plays into the whole idea of vets as a risk group. There was no way for them to know he had contact with Stormfront before they came from him. For that matter, I can’t see how they would have known he was in the Corps at all.
-
4: Just because they employ vets doesn’t mean that they are automatically prevented from making ridiculous assumptions about vets with PTSD or difficulties reengaging.
-
5: I know racial profiling is still alive, although a little more sickly than it was. That doesn’t change anything I said. If “Muslims” was substituted for vets because “they may be exposed to increased radicalism in their religion” there would be an uproar. Why? Because that would represent institutionalizing of wholesale profiling.
-
Again, there are no statistics in the report to even suggest veterans with problems are at a higher risk. Just hyperactive imaginations.

excuse me, *right wing fringe recruitment…

yoshi
.
Allow me to remind you that this was a document that DHS made public. But it wasn’t FOR the public. And we don’t know what information they have that they have given to law enforcement that wasn’t made public. For all you know they sent out all kinds of examples to law enforcement backing up the assertions in the report but didn’t make them public. If you really think they had no reason to put that report out you haven’t been paying attention to the news. But the truth is I know that you have but like most folks (myself included) you would rather not just give up the ghost and say you were wrong. Thats cool but its pretty obvious at this point that the report wasn’t “targeting” veterans. I am pretty sure that by this time next week the American Legion will be releasing a statement saying they are good with the report.

Dee, I will say that right wingers who talk of armed revolt and secession hate our country. They just don’t know it, as they don’t know what our country is about.

yoshi
.
I said. If “Muslims” was substituted for vets because “they may be exposed to increased radicalism in their religion” there would be an uproar.
.
Are you really trying to make that as an analogy? Seriously? Cmon now you are better than that. If you tried to make that leap then the report would read Veterans returning him from Iraq are likely to be targeted by Army recruiters to turn them into right wing extremists Lets kill the strawman here. Reports have come out and continue to come out that say Muslims with a certain profile are targeted by radical muslim extremists to try to get them to try terrorism. Whether it be a particular mosque they attend, a particular kind of clothing they wear, the particular kinds of chat rooms they go in there is no way you can say that our government doesn’t consider those Muslims more at risk of being recruited and has said so. MANY times. I give up man, good night.

SG:
-
Well, you’re right, I don’t like admitting I’m wrong. I just don’t think your case is obvious.
-
First, you’re justifying the report’s near-total lack of evidence on invisible evidence that may or may not exist.
-
Next, you’re dismissing the American Legion. Regardless of your case, it’s clear that their National Commander thought there was substance to this.

Since I’ve only been a part of the Swamp for less than 7 months and I’m not familiar with JK’s threads during the Bush era, I take it he was somewhat less than critical during that time. However, he’s giving them hell NOW and it’s better to come late to the party than to not come at all. I’ll let Joe know where to send the check.

Well, you are right about those reports’ existence and abundance. The first question is, is the evidence (stat) based? The second is, is the troubled vets (or, depending on the way you read it, the entire veteran) population more diverse than the Muslim sectors the government has targeted? I would say much more so.
-
These are the problems with the report. Generality and lack of evidence. If the reports you brought up also suffer from those qualities, then they are irresponsible as well.

“Is that a commentary on what we were discussing before? And by the way, do you see how the report assesses veterans as a risk group for domestic terrorism?”
.
Yoshi-Are you friggin serious? That wasn’t commentary that was a report of an actual event that actually happen. WTF is wrong with you?

They are not only thugs, but cowards and criminals as well. Shame will follow them the rest of their lives.

President Teddy Roosevelt said “No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.

Remember: “There is always a CON in CONservative”

[...] to the ridiculous conservative meme that Obama is more polarizing than Bush, calling it the World’s Stupidist Argument: Bush flunkies trying to argue that Obama is more polarizing than Bush was. Given the fact that [...]

Joe, I want to address a statement that you made which causes me to not take you or anything you say seriously.

You said Obama would not “launch wars peremptorily without cause or purpose.”

I can only assume you are referring to the Iraq war.

The Iraq war had very clear cause and purpose. You might not agree with the cause or purpose, but they were there.

I won’t be reading things that I see with your name attached. It is a waste of time.

Yoshi – regarding your suspicion that “the whole president-in-crisis thing is going to [Obama's] head” – I think the fairer analysis is this: Obama, and the rest of us, have ample evidence the Republicans would rather oppose than contribute. They’ve given the president a choice between (a) getting things done he was elected to do, and (b) waiting around, ultimately to get punked by those clamoring for “bipartisanship.” As long as the Republicans equate bipartisanship and presidential capitulation they’ll remain irrelevant.

gysgt:
Yes, of course it is. I wondered if you were trying to make a point with it.
-
FlownOver:
-
Perhaps. They haven’t got it together.

Yoshi, you seem to object to anyone analyzing the information put before them. Frankly, I tire of people who believe the only valid interpretation of text is literal. Interestingly, after 9/11 we reached a consensus that we were unable to prevent 9/11 because of a failure of imagination, a failure to connect the dots.
.
Yet, the only way to connect dots is by assessing all of the possible logical next steps (which by definition is evidence you do not possess) that one would take if their goal was to do the country harm and regardless of whether or not you knew of specific individuals attempting to achieve this goal, you could assume that there are a range of operational imperatives they would need to secure.
.
Now in you world this is called conjecture and you seem to consider this irrelevant to the discussion. Nevertheless, in the law enforcement world it is the job of the analyst to take known facts, and make educated guesses using precedent, similar situations, etc and extrapolate to the specific situation at hand. Not surprisingly to anyone who is an intelligence analyst, engaging in this kind of analysis you can come up with a realistic assessment of the possible alternatives you may confront and prepare for them.
.
Apparently, this is what this report represents. And what I don’t understand is why you and so many others on your side of the aisle have so many objections to this kind of critical thinking. It is merely a framework to keep in mind that can offer avenues to consider when you are trying to understand a set of circumstances, it’s not a means to demonize, detain or prosecute a group.
.
Curiously, talking heads on the right, not all but many, seem determined to object to any and everything put forth by the left even if it could hurt our economy, make less secure physically, or damage our system of democracy. It cannot be that the GOP is engaged in a scorched earth policy can it? Does America mean so little to conservatives that they would be willing to destroy the country in the hopes that they can regain the lead?
.
And if you choose to answer only one of my questions, please let it be the following: Why is it whenever the discussion turns to the radical right or wingnuts, conservatives jump to their defense as if the discussion is focused directly on them?
.
It’s not what they call you that matters, it is what you answer to that counts. If you’re not a nazi skin head, a black helicopter conspiracy fearing one world government, or keep your personal army in a bunker beneath your house kind of nut job, then why do you feel the need to defend the lunatics?
.
Are you trying to get us to believe that there are no crazies on the right? Come on that’s not possible right? I saw them on teevee yesterday holding up signs claiming Obama was the new Hitler and anybody whose taxes were being raised were the new Jews — now you have to admit that is certifiably batsh#t crazy.
.
I know that GOP numbers are shrinking, but this stuff is cyclical. Eventually, the GOP will heal, get some new ideas and the country will let them play leader again. Unless of course they continue to blur the lines between the GOP and those unfortunate souls baying at the moon. Right now Obama is not your problem and hating him is not changing the fact that to most of the country Glenn Beck believes FEMA is running concentration camps, Bachmann claims Americorps are brainwashing our children, Gov. Perry is threatening secession, hinting he will run against Chuck Norris for the presidency of Texas and Sen Burr of North Carolina was stupid enough to brag that he subscribes to the every man for himself political philosophy. Based on information that at the time was insider information he instructed his wife to use the ATM over a specified number of days to withdrawal all of their money out of the bank before it fails. Of course, risking a bank run at this critical juncture wasn’t the worst of his sins, the worst was being so stupid that he didn’t know 1) his money was insured and 2) there was no way to get it out in time using an ATM.
.
I wish you luck, because as David Letterman so succinctly put it — Republicans, you’ve got nothing.

Carter, Clinton welcome The Once to ARTICULATE FAILURES alumni club, hope to see him Woodrow Wilson Weekend at Notre Damascus.

————————-

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

Carter Library fuming over Obama’s repeating late 70′s legacy of fear and self-loathing, asks for small Gaza stipend to keep yapper shut.

……………..

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

Illinois to get almost 15 percent of 2009 road repair graft, White House blames tricky Rezko math for not being closer to 25 percent goal.

——————

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

Special heart olympian Junior Letterman’s father alive & Republican, skips idiot son’s feral wedding for 2-hour episode of LOST.

””””””””””””””’

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

[...] Joe Klein takes on the “world’s stupidest argument”: [...]

[...] Joe Klein on the alleged divisiveness of Obama: Given the fact that Obama had to take dramatic action, at home and abroad, to start lifting the country from the mess Bush made almost everywhere–and also begin to turn the country away from the myopia and greed of the Reagan era–it’s amazing that he hasn’t raised more dust or teabags. And, I should add the fact that the alleged polarization mostly results from the fact that Obama gets extremely low ratings from self-identified Republicans, who constitute an extremist shard of a party at this point, is a badge of honor. [...]

1. Now I’m sorry I didn’t take “Wing Fat” as my login
2. This argument (about the DHS report) is kind of silly, don’t you think? First – I’ve never seen any numbers (maybe broken down by decade over the past 50 years) about the number of ‘terrorist’ attacks in the US that can be attributed to a particular “wing” (left- or right-); second, I second the question as to why this hysterical frothing assumes that “right-wing extremist” means “any Republican”. Tell me – what defines “left-wing extremist”?
3. The information is only the first part of the problem – it’s the interpretation that really counts. This whole thing about “polarizing” is also kind of silly. It’s more of a Rohrschach test than anything else, because what you see in the numbers says more about you than about what the numbers might actually ‘objectively’ mean.

Dee, conservatives are usually seen as reaching when they cite 9/11 to bolster a counterterrorist argument. So you understand why your response fills me with warm, fuzzy joy.
-
The two problems I have with this report are the presence of blanket statements and the absence of evidence to back them up. Did intelligence and law enforcement officials prior to 9/11 choose not to pursue the terrorists aggressively because of either of these problems in the investigation? No. The evidence prior to 9/11 had many specific details (which were not shared between intel agencies). It also targeted very specific individuals.
-
You have typed out a neat summary of what an analyst should do, but these things are always qualified by the details – which you and the DHS do not possess. Simply repeating the phrase “a failure of imagination” is hardly a vindication. One can also have a hyperactive imagination. I believe those on your side, perhaps including you, accused the Bush Administration of this when they started issuing color alerts based on waterboarding-extracted confessions from KSM. It is, indeed, possible to go to extremes.
-
Also, to answer your question, we’re not jumping to the defense of Alex Jones, Stormfront, and co. I’m not sure if they count as far right or not, and the report surely isn’t going to provide me with the evidence to make that judgment. What conservatives fear is being lumped in with these individuals through insidious insinuation. When an intel report pronounces characteristics of right extremism to be stockpiling on ammo or being a one-issue group, that blurs the line. In the left extremism report, they actually cite names. Not so for the its counterpart – DHS can’t be bothered with such irrelevant details.
-
People like Perry don’t help the case of the right when they flirt with secession. But the left can’t be bothered to properly differentiate between the crazies. Take Glenn Beck – he brought in a Popular Mechanics man to debunk the FEMA Camps. But you’d never hear, or mention that. (Popular Mechanics was the linchpin in debunking the 9/11 conspiracies) The left also can’t be bothered to mention their own crazies. Ever hear what happened to Cindy Sheehan after her vigil? Uh oh.

Oh, by the way, this Congressman challenged the 2004 election results – and even he thinks the report’s full of crap.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/15/top-dem-dumbfounded-extremism-report/

Its clear that the report is more concerned with the extremist groups targeting returning soldiers than they are the soldiers themselves.
.
Take a kid out of high school, a loner who was part of no groups and felt he doesn’t belong, with no job prospects, and put him into the military, as part of a unit. For the first time in a long time, he feels like he belongs.
.
Now . . . teach him to kill – and do it well, in service to his country. Throw in multiple tours into a combat area and the related stress (something he’s never had to cope with before). Throw in PTSD and constant political rhetoric about the DFHs not appreciating your sacrifice over there.
.
Now, send the kid home because of emotional issues brought on by the constant stress. He’s now out of the best “unit” life he’s ever enjoyed and back into an environment unprepared to give him support. He has no job waiting and few prospects because, let’s face it, there’s no openings available in the market for what he did in the field.
.
How long before he’s going to be looking for ANYONE to give him something to belong to, be it a gang or a local right-wing group who tells him what he wants to hear – that they’re ready to welcome him as “one of them”?
.
I do understand the concern. It’s NOT a blanket indictment of ALL veterans but I think they ARE concerned with certain types, those that would be of great value to these groups.
.
It’s not the the new-ly separated truck drivers or supply clerks that the I think will be the targets for recruitment. It’s the vulnerable, emotionally-unstable kids with high-quality war skills that I think they are so concerned about – those with no emotional attachment to anyone in particular who can give them the community group support that they need, who will be good targets.

[...] – Time/Swampland [...]

[...] He makes his case here; I offered my response here. And then along came Joe Klein of Time to add his inimitable voice to the [...]

[...] the divider, Bush or Obama? / The Week “Bush flunkies” have some nerve, said Joe Klein in Time. Karl Rove and company are saying that President Obama is more polarizing than George W. Bush. But [...]