Skip to main content

View Diary: Alan Simpson: Social Security denialist, senior citizen hater (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Glenn Greenwald described what you raise (7+ / 0-)

    as such when discussing the White House and the torture photo issue:

    It is one thing to believe on Monday that an argument is true. It is another to believe the argument is true on Monday when the White House says it is true, but then change you mind on Wednesday because the White House says its not true.

    There are really two choices: a) no independent thought or b) no principles. It is also likely a combination of both.

    One of my early tests for how cynical the president's supporters are is where I ask "If this had been George Bush saying or doing X, would you support it?" X being the exact same thing as what President Obama had said or done.

    I have yet to ever get a clear answer. That suggests for those to whom I posed the question there is no independent thought rather than no principles that weighs them down in analyzing a situation that relates to the president.

    •  It points out the difference between principle (0+ / 0-)

      and hero worship.  

      If George Bush had done to Mrs. Sherrod what Obama's Ag Secretary did, they'd be crapping gold bricks.  

      My favorite Obama discussion and the fan club's problem with liberals is, hold on to your hat, principles.  That's right, principles are the problem.  

      When did principles become a bad thing?  When did situational principles become the key to "moving forward".

      And this leads perfectly into my main reason why Obama lost my support.  I consider a woman's privacy as sacrosanct.  Obama considered it a bargaining chip so he could "move forward".

      But then the fan club pushes the idea that Obama is pro-choice and believes in a woman's privacy.  

      Huh?

      You either believe in a woman's privacy or you don't.  And you cannot believe in the principle if you consider it a bargaining chip. What other principle does Obama consider a bargaining chip to be used as needed?

      So now the discussion is over Social Security.  Same discussion about principles.  Only this one will hurt.    

      This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

      by ThAnswr on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:00:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't have a problem with a lack of (0+ / 0-)

        principles if I thought they were legitimately pragmatic. They aren't.  Anyone thinking they can sell the third rail of American politics (cutting Social Security in anyway) is delusional.

        •  I don't trust people who don't have principles. (0+ / 0-)

          End of story.  

          This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

          by ThAnswr on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:25:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't either. But, this isn't about trust (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ThAnswr

            This is about understanding people with different perspectives than myself and understanding whether what they say on the terms they have set make sense or is there yet another perspective guiding them.

            This is about whether even on their own terms- claims of political pragmatism - does what they say make sense.

            In that sense, my point is that they are equally nonsensical. Thus, your argument over focus on hero worship makes more sense.

            Someone else point it like this: Its not like they are truly even interested in the Democratic Party despite their claims. If they were, they would be asking what does the policy failures or shift in policies mean for the Democratic Party? What does even the appearance of shifts means for the party? And, yet, again this is not the real concern. The real concern is how it affects the president. And, not in a pragmatic "he can win with this at the polls way, but in a superficial- I want to believe in him so don't harsh my buzz with him shooting himself in the foot."

            I mean anyone who could not see it was a bad idea to support the president when he was pushing a stimulus that would not address the down turn when the economy primary shapes elections isn't someone dealing in pragmatic reality

            Even if they lack principles, survival instincts alone would tell them let's make sure we give people policies that will help the economy since that will influence whether those people vote for us or not. Again- not even a consideration. Instead, the typical response is to lash out at anyone who doesn't just buck up and accept it. Or to claim that people are accepting it regardless of what data actually shows on the public's views.

            •  You could stop right here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bruh1

              Thus, your argument over focus on hero worship makes more sense.

              Everything revolves around Obama.  All manna flows from Obama.  It is what the old Communists used to call "The Cult of Personality".  

              Because of this focus on Obama and his inability to capitalize on the political gifts he was given by the voters, pragmatism took on a whole new meaning.  

              Pragmatism was no longer doing what was necessary to get the job done.  The new pragmatism redefined for Obama meant "getting something done".  Whether that something was adequate to the job at hand became irrelevant.  

              It's been a fascinating study.  

              However, while I agree with much of what you say, I wouldn't discount the idea of trust.  Ultimately, there comes a time when we all have to make a leap of faith to move forward.  You need trust and belief in the other's credibility to do that.  

              Even if they lack principles, survival instincts alone would tell them let's make sure we give people policies that will help the economy since that will influence whether those people vote for us or not.

              I've been saying the same thing but more focused on Obama.  If no other reason, the viability of his presidency would have told him to change course.  He hasn't.  

              So we're left with 2 possibilities:

              1.  Either Obama is truly clueless and doesn't even realize how much trouble his presidency is in.
              1.  He doesn't care.  

              The truth is, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter as the end result is the same.  

              This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

              by ThAnswr on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:00:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Have you noticed? (0+ / 0-)

      Usually the most interesting questions never get an answer.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell

      by denise b on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:17:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are very disciplined at avoiding (0+ / 0-)

        accountability and objective standards.

        Its not surprising they wouldn't answer the question about Bush. That invites objective comparison. When I made the point the issue was a) how dare I make such a comparison b) he's obviously different c) Bush would have done something far worse, etc.

        I don't think I even once got a straight answer to a straight for question "If Bush did the same thing, what would you say?"

        The truth is they didn't need to answer the question after a certain point because the lack of willingness to ask a straight forward question is an answer.

      •  answer a straight forward question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson

        is an answer.

        The answer is that they didn't like objectively what it said about their principles. That they are transitory and completely a wait of time to debate them on because they aren't based in anything that anyone can trust beyond the conversation of the moment.

        Its like, to give another, people against unnamed sources when the harm the president who are for them when they help him. Or, against crossing the aisles if it changes the president agenda to make it more liberal (i.e. on auditing the fed or drug re-importation) but for it when it benefits (as they see it) him.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site