... revealing that the costs of Bill Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy amounted to one one-hundredth of one percent of the military budget over 10 years ...
"One-hundredth of one percent... over ten years". Is that an accurate figure? How do we know it’s not one-ninety seventh of one percent over eleven years? We have no way of judging how accurate the number is, nor of judging the competence of whoever came up with it. Would you stake everything on that cost of DADT over 10 years being accurate? What margin of error are you including? Anybody reading that figure would have their own answers to those questions. If we’re arguing about accuracy, possible responses include “I’ll take your word for it”, “prove it”, “that’s wrong and here’s why…”, “that’s a lie and here’s why…” , “I don’t think about such things and I won’t start now” , “these prove that my side is right”, and many more.
Then there’s the attacks that would be made on wherever I happen to link for sources. Wherever I have provided links in arguments about current events, I don’t think I’ve ever linked to a Fox News site, precisely because people would start bitching about that and see absolutely nothing else.
I notice nobody is willing yet to acknowledge that Molly Norris is still hiding in fear for her life, nor that President Obama has expanded the use of the US military into several countries that did not attack us on 9/11.
So how has this thread gone again? Lessee, I started out pointing out that Obama inherited his predecessor’s war powers and that he was expanding on them. The context was that we are at war and Molly Norris was a new casualty. I also pointed out that he was given a complete pass on this by his supporters, and he still is. I referred to a complicated network of creativity, ingenuity, effort, drawing connections into a sustained pattern. These are the ideas at the heart of all effort, and the results of those efforts, and I used the image of soldiers sharing a foxhole to make a point about how different people fell different places when measuring commitment to a cause or to people outside themselves.
Allen blamed Bush/Cheney for everything, then I mused on the Orwellian definition of “doublethink”, specifically the “carefully-constructed lie” part of it. As a result of sustained effort over a period of time, how can one carefully construct a lie? I speculated on Prime Cause – which Muslims would say is God – and listed a few varying examples of results over a period of time, such as scriptural differences, 1960’s Marvel and Obamacare.
I also re-iterated that we are at war with extremist Islam, and that the President who was elected to stop doing that and give up his war powers has instead escalated the war. I also asked, from the beer summit to expanding COIN in Afghanistan without knowing what COIN meant, what had Obama ever done to justify the faith that his supporters still had in him? Other than being elected President, I mean.
Notice how every post I make keeps mentioning that we’re at war? I also mention that Molly Norris is still unable to live a normal life where she can write, draw or go outside. All because her name was associated with making an image of the Prophet Muhammed, which is forbidden. I also brought up the similarity of the Obama method of war to the Clinton method, which is to fire missles at civilians in countries that didn’t attack us on 9/11 and leave it at that. At one point I opined that such reflexive defenses of ignorance were similar to Stalinists who immediately labeled anything they didn’t like as “Trotskyist”, which allowed them to safely ignore it. As an example, I referred to a comicon thread about a group of “US” bragging about chasing “THEM” away, suggesting there was a similar underlying mentality.
After his typical overcompensation about hiding his gayness, Allen brought up my health care plan, which is taxpayer-funded and not “free” as he called it. I also quoted him blatantly lying ABOUT Erik Larsen TO Erik Larsen and he displays a willful blindness of his own words when I correct him. Again, he proclaims his willful ignorance of reality. Would you put your life in his decision-making abilities. Then I responded to his relevant comments about the war.
I briefly described the umma, the worldwide community of those who submit to the Will of God. Nothing happens without God’s will, and the examples of 9/11, Major Hassan and many more demonstrated the seriousness of the danger. Abdulmutallab got a bomb on a plane, on CHRISTMAS DAY, and tried to set it off. From a security standpoint, th, at bomb and everybody on board effectively died, because the system to keep people with bombs from getting on planes failed, despite Janet Napolitano’s insistence otherwise. I re-iterate, again, that I continue to be talking about the war and the conditions of war. You know, examples of complicated networks of creativity, ingenuity, effort, drawing connections into sustained patterns. Nothing happens without God’s will, bombs on planes, willfully ignoring facts of reality, we’re at war.
Jesus, I’m not even up to “isolated extremist”, and I think it’s clear that I’m still talking about the same stuff I’ve been talking about all along: Ideas of strategy, security and defense, that can be applied to numerous different endeavors. Different results will happen as a result of varying levels of ability, quality, speed, as well as differing contexts and interpretations, not to mention the will of God. What Obi Wan Kenobi would call a certain point of view.
Finally, for the second post in a row, I list a bunch of Obama’s greatest verbal gaffes, which are certainly the equal of his predecessor’s. Buried somewhere in the second one is the first reference to “isolated extremist”. Then Allen accused me of parroting Glenn Beck and Peter said our victory in the war would depend on common friendship with “the mainstream Muslim world”. For reasons that I still don’t understand, he thinks Obama is the one to make that happen, and I even point out examples why it might not be so. For instance, there is no mainstream Muslim world, and also Obama really isn’t showing any sign of being able to lead his fellow Americans, much less people who are at war with us.
Although this thread has been going on for over a month, there are brand-new examples of this in the current events. Muhammad Hussain was arrested for attempting to blow up a military base in Baltimore, and Mohamed Osman Mohamud tried to burn down the Portland Christmas tree. Are they isolated extremists? They have the umma, how could they be? And explosives don’t exactly grow on trees, so they must have some connection with some other human being.
Abdulmutallab had direct connections to an American citizen that Obama has been firing patriot missles at, as did Faisal Shazad, the Times Square bomber and Major Hasan, an Army officer at Fort Hood who murdered 13 people in ten minutes. The Unabomber was isolated, and he killed three people in seventeen years. And he still had connections to other people which assisted in bringing him down, so he wasn’t actually an “isolated extremist”. The phrase “isolated extremist”, particularly to people who (like the enemy) submit to the will of God, is inappropriate for a war President to use in a wartime statement about a wartime attack by our enemy in war. Molly Norris isn’t hiding in fear for her life from “isolated extremists” and “isolated extremists” did not gun down US soldiers in Fort Hood or Afghanistan.
A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.
This has no place being in a Presidential statement on the dangers of isolated extremists and the importance of American citizens to stand on guard against isolated extremists. Especially since Muslims are (a) no more dangerous than the Christians you meet every day and (b) it’s our own fault anyway because of Bush’s evil Christian wars and America’s Christian/ethnic-based Islamophobia.
Except that my spelling and grammar are better, the above paragraph is exactly what we’ve been hearing from the left since 9/11.http://www.ihatethemedia.com/top-twelve-stupid-huffington-post-comments-on-the-portland-bomber
In quoting from Obama’s statement on Abdulmutallab, Charles also says that every claim I make comes from talk radio, just as Allen said that I get everything from Glenn Beck. Let’s pretend that I own a television or a working radio (which I don’t), what difference would it make if I were
parroting everything said by someone else? You aren’t addressing the war, or the fact that the President has expanded it from his predecessor, or anything else, so what does it matter where my information or perspective comes from? Just accuse me of having a television or a working radio (which I don’t) and you’ll be spared the bother of having to think about unpleasant ideas and the complicated networks built from those ideas; networks of creativity, ingenuity, and effort which draws connections into sustained patterns. If I were critiquing his role as Chief Executive, I’d probably have gone with “solid B+”, and I’d have used a variation of “bitterly clinging” if I were critiquing his community organizing abilities and “votes present” if I were critiquing his interactions with the rest of the government. All of these phrases came from Obama, they all work as a handy summary of the context and foolishness of a given aspect in Obama’s presidency in the same way that “Mission Accomplished” does for part of GWB’s Presidency.
Stephen and Peter make game attempts at responding to the ideas I’ve brought up. Allen (who thinks my immediate desire upon hearing about Molly Norris’ plight was to want to kill all Muslims, and also accuses me of getting everything from Glenn Beck) was going to ignore any implications of the war that he finds unpleasant before I quoted Obama’s pithy two-word soundbite. Charles (who thinks I get everything from talk radio) was going to ignore unpleasant implications of the war before I said “isolated extremists”. Yet unpleasant implications of the war do not go away just because you ignore them. Molly Norris is still hiding in fear for her life and the President has expanded the use of US military forces to include Muslim countries that did not attack us on 9/11 without one-tenth of the shit that his predecessor got.
Example: let's say you took it upon yourself to take a tiny little sound-byte from an Obama speech in which he used the phrase "isolated extremist" in loose association with a bomb plot attempted by, seemingly, a single person, and somehow out of just that, tried to spin a rambling theory about Obama covertly trying to brainwash us all into thinking terrorism was not a real problem in the world because he is not a real patriot or whatever.
Really? “Seemingly” a single person, even a Muslim, who constructs a bomb and gets it through airport security without any assistance. Statement by the President of the United States on that single person is “loose association” “…covertly trying to brainwash us… because he’s not a real patriot or whatever”. Really?
the only reason you know the extremist in question did have links to terrorist organizations was because of the very efforts of the administration ostensibly being criticized. I.e. Obama admitted they didn't yet know much about the history of the extremist in question; promptly investigated the matter; and provided you with the (now factual) link to the Middle East you were apparently pining for.
So did rich capitalist corporations, so what? So did the Bush administration, so what? By all means, feel free to start giving credit where it’s due. Oil and millionaires are crucial elements to gathering and releasing this information to the President as well as to us slobs on the internet.
If you think quoting the President’s own words is somehow invalid, then I don’t know what to tell you. If you think admitting that they screwed up and fixing the matter somehow means the screw-up did not happen just as it was as I’ve describe it there with four-part harmony and full orchestration, then I really don’t know what to tell you. The American people knew that this was not an “isolated extremist” before the President did. Their instincts are better. They know things you don’t. Stop telling them they parrot talk radio.
You respond by disingenuously accusing the person making the counterargument against you of "flying into a nit-picking rage" over two words -- the two you introduced to the discussion, on the presumption they had some sort of menacing secret import
Or that they perfectly summarize the illusion that the President and his supporters – both in this thread and in the remaining blue areas of the country – have been trying to make real: the notion that we are not at war, there is no Muslim threat to Molly Norris or anyone else that needs to be discussed. Firing Patriot missles into Muslim countries that did not attack us on 9/11 is a good way to forget about issues you find icky, and fortunately Iran and North Korea are not building their own missles for use even after all of Obama’s hard work. The notion that the real problem is talk radio and Fox News and right-wing Christians in America. Anything that contradicts this sustained pattern of ideas is thrown down the memory hole.
and proceed to whine about being compared to the prominent right-wing propagandists who had been trying to make the same idiotic pseudo-argument about the two words in question quite publicly on TV and talk radio.
That we’re at war? Even the President has said so. I support many, possibly most of his actions as commander-in-chief – the ones I know of anyway – and my support would be even higher if he wasn’t trying to sustain the illusions I just described, the ones you and his other supporters share. I don’t listen to talk radio or anything, but it looks like the overall view of the right-wing. Remember when the left was lauding the commander-in-chief’s actions after the SEALs shot some Somali pirates? Good times.
Having little more to offer on the subject than diversions to other equally inane, slightly paranoid, and only tangentially related right-wing talking points, the chips at that time have fallen.
Diversions like Molly Norris living in fear for her life from now until the day she dies? This is the ninth time I’ve mentioned her this post alone.
Diversions like President Obama expanding US military action into nations that did not attack us on 9/11?
Diversions like national defense and security?
How about acknowledgement that I’ve been talking about the same thing all along. No? Is that too much for you to handle? A sustained pattern of ideas and the results they achieve through creativity, intelligence, ability, context and time. These ideas and results can be applied in multiple ways, “re-invested” if you will, and some will return more “profits” than others. Some ideas and results will turn out to be illusions.
As someone who profited from so many of other people’s illusions, and the most powerful man in the world, and as the leader of the United States, Barack Obama is going to get criticized. Let me know if the level of criticism ever reaches examples here:http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Scroll down for the pics, because reading his intro will only make you think he listens to too much talk radio, and we all know that’s an instant mind-closer for you. It doesn’t need to be true, it just needs to be said, and you know exactly what to think about a given issue.
Finally, growing bored, you topic-shift back to hating gays, forcing Allen to reluctantly rub one out while envisioning you in uniform; and fun is had by all.
Allen’s a dick, and he agrees with you about ‘most everything else. He also assumes I get everything from Glenn Beck, accuses Erik Larsen of currently swiping other comics artists and brags about chasing Larsen away on another thread (as do others here). I did say “feel free to ask questions”, so I tried to play fair with what I was given, including the application of the idea pattern I’ve been sustaining all along to DADT: Does it accomplish the mission? No, so it’s of lesser importance. Does it impact the welfare of the soldiers? No, because nobody asks if a soldier is gay. Males are housed with males, females are housed with females, and soldiers are expected to respect the chain of command and solve their issues at the lowest level. That doesn’t happen when you invent new rules of employment and apply them across the board with no thought for the negative consequence. It’s not hating gays to point this out, but you already think I parrot talk radio – as do Allen and Charles, two others I respond to along with you – so your minds are made up. That I have several years experience with the military including multiple deployments to a war zone apparently gives me no weight on the topic of the enemy or leadership or how DADT works. For all you know, I could be a gay Muslim, but you already have me dismissed for listening to too much talk radio, Fox News, etc. And you’ll do anything to avoid thinking about American citizens like Molly Norris who are hiding in fear for their lives. Because you’re so concerned about civil rights, human rights, and being tolerant of other people’s views.
Another habit Obama has picked up from his predecessor (after initially dropping it) was the tendency to end speeches with “may God continue to bless the United States of America.” I wish he had done that yesterday, but ‘you go to war with the President you have, not the President you wish you had’ and all that.
So what do you think of the odds for another terrorist attempt – God willing, an unsuccessful one – as we head towards Christmas?
This philosophy would explain some things, but I can't say I buy it. You are clearly someone who hears only what they want to hear[/quote]
Says one of the many people who apparently think I parrot talk radio and, if you can’t get any justification there, assume chemical influence is responsible for something. When was this standard applied to anyone else? Obama took drugs, people in Hollywood don’t shut up about their liberalism, you don’t challenge any of them on that basis, and you know them as well as you know me. Maybe when Obama said “isolated extremist” about a Muslim terrorist connected to the American citizen (and foreign civilian bystanders) he was firing Patriot missles at, he was just jonesing for a cigarette. I think and write the same way I always have, whether drunk or stoned or sober. But I’m the one who hears only what I want to hear.
So, as someone who proudly proclaims himself to hear that which he does not want to hear, about how many hours a week do you spend listening to talk radio? I don’t honestly care, but it’s obviously a standard of measurement you and Charles and Allen (and others who agree with you) find useful in your thinking and writing about politics and other topics. So how much time, approximately, and can you distinguish between the talk radio shows you listen to? Al Franken, backed by a lot of Hollywood money, got to be Senator based on his work in talk radio, and I’d be interested in knowing how your ideas apply to his career as well as (for example) Rush Limbaugh’s.
so hell, why not at least have some illustrations to go with it? A picture is only worth a thousand words, so it'll take a few dozen to cover one of your typical editorials, but I still say it's better bang for the buck. E.g.
Different people are into different things. There’s a huge difference between people who submit to the will of God and people who don’t, and a wealth of things to be observed and learned from both types of people and whatever subgroups they form, whatever patterns they sustain over time.
Personally, I think it's simplistic to declare that you can spin stats and pictures to say "anything" and thus they are useless. Hell, if you feel that strongly about it, why bother with information at all?
Psssst, I didn’t say they were “useless”.
Dude, we’re on a comic book message board, I get the appeal of infographics. But like statistics, they can be made to say whatever a person wants. Even when they’re telling me what I want to hear, I try to avoid them.
Madget, are you sure you’re any good at this “what you really meant to say is…” thing? It works when I do it, because you really are ignoring Molly Norris and what caused her to hide in fear for her life, and you really are ignoring that President Obama has expanded US military presence into Muslim nations that did not attack us on 9/11. Those are facts whether or not I listen to talk radio; facts which you and Allen and Charles (and others who agree with you) use that kind of accusation to ignore.
I didn’t say statistics and pictures were useless. I said I get the appeal, but I don’t trust them, and it so happens that I’m writing more to sustain the network of ideas I’m interested in. Sure I could post more links and/or figure out how to post graphics to help my arguments, but I don’t really keep a list of favorite links to cite whenever need be, and am more inclined to take whatever are at hand. I trust the ideas and basic principles and my ability to roll with ideas as they come up. On this thread, I’ve done it with DADT, Charles’ quote of the definition for “doublethink” and Erik Larsen’s departure. Topside, I’ve posted more often recently, still applying the same thought processes and ideas and principles. [Just read Fables: Witches. Who wants to talk about it?] In the last two months, after coming back from deployment, I wrote the first draft of a political fable, thanks to the NANOWRIMO challenge. If I want to work with these ideas in pictures, I’d draw a comic (as I did on this last deployment). Or I’d work with them in music (recorded a couple of albums on my first deployment). Statistics and pictographs are fine for what they are, but they’re not great for the ideas I’m talking about.
For instance, I recently read some article about changes in recidivism rates of people released from Gitmo, comparing the numbers during the Bush administration with the Obama administration. I’m deliberately not looking the article up now, but whatever change there was could be negatively slanted towards Bush or Obama depending on one’s inclination. The specifics of recidivism are complicated and technical and best left to the people who know of the problem and are the ones to decide upon and implement a solution.
I could cite those recidivism rates, actual numbers with nifty graphics, and prove whatever point I’ve been making all along [that we are at war, that Molly Norris was the most recent casualty of this war at the time this discussion started, that the left is desperate to avoid realizing any of the ramifications and is, unfortunately, in charge of the war]. Would that make you happy? Even though recidivism isn’t what I’m talking about any more than I am implying any “brainwashing by Obama”. You may be INFERRING that I’m calling statistics “useless” or saying Obama’s “not a patriot”, but that’s not what I’m doing or IMPLYING. How about acknowledging that for a change, instead of blaming the effects on other people of alcohol or GWB or talk radio for your own inability to comprehend what someone else is saying even when they spell it out in plain English.
See Dick. See Jane. See Muhammed
See Muhammed try to blow up himself and Dick and Jane. Bad Muhammed.
See Dick blame GWB, talk radio, GWB, Glenn Beck, GWB, Fox News, GWB, right wing Christians, GWB, inherit the problem, GWB to explain the motive for anything he says or does.
Blame, Dick, blame!
See Muhammed try again to blow himself up. Bad Muhammed.
See Jane ask why they can’t stop Muhammed from trying to blow himself up. Ask, Jane, ask!
See Dick blame GWB, Fox News, Halliburton, GWB, global warming, anti-abortion fanatics, GWB, imperialism, capitalism, racism, GWB, to explain all motives for anything anybody says or does.
See Muhammed try again to blow himself up. He injures Dick and Jane. Bad Muhammed.
See Dick take charge of protecting Jane from Muhammed. Protect, Dick, protect!
See Dick blame GWB, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, GWB, isolated extremists, doctors who diagnose diabetes in order to collect amputation fees, GWB, anything but the truth.
See Jane ask What. The. Fuck.