My God, you are an idiot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Okay.

2. Wrong. You can't read. Here's a tip: Do not try to hang me, or anyone else on this board, with improper use of vocabulary. First, we're lawyers, and this being the default retort we see everyday from those who have no substance to add to a discussion, or who are unable to grasp what's being said, and feel insecure about it, it achieves the opposite of the desired result. Second, it reinforces the perception you are a narrow thinker who can almost never grasp the big picture, or how any of the pieces work in concert, and is only capable of focusing on finite issues, and criticizing small points. Third, it reinforces the perception much of what you post derives from some bizarre compulsion to reply to everything, even if you've nothing to add.

Don't reply to this. Let it soak in. Walk away from the keyboard and think, because I am not the first person to flag you for this. But I'd like to be the last, because it's really fucking annoying to have to do it.

While we are recommending deep reflection, perhaps you should consider why you view all conversation among friends/acquaintances as an adversarial conflict. And why you constantly see others as "trying to hang you" or using "lawyer tricks" in ways you consider unfair.

Perhaps you know what "multiplier" means, but rather like your idiosyncratic usage of "structural" and whatever other word (inflation?), you, Ty and I went back and forth over for days before we fleshed out that you didn't mean what everyone else means when they say it, you keep saying things that don't make sense as stated.

Your response here was particularly enlightening. Delong was talking about infrastructure spending and laid out two types of multiplier effects -- the effects resulting from employed people having money to spend and the effects of more commerce resulting from private enterprise using the infrastructure the government bought. You ignored/denied the latter and focused on the former to fit your notion of fading.

And, of course, this isn't our first conversation. In the past, when stimulus spending was on the table as a potential policy response, you questioned the first kind of multiplier, criticizing the ARRA because the only good multiplier is the kind that creates value that the private sector could use. Now you take opposite position, insisting that the only multiplier is that resulting from putting money in pockets, which necessarily fades.

I could have written all that, but because I assume you know when you are being full of shit, sometimes it's tiresome to lay it all out.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but on this board we keep on topic for issues; personal attacks are frowned upon as counterproductive to answering the political challenges of the day.

It's a big picture thing.

That's why I never post here. Ever. The board is too high-minded.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

That's why I never post here. Ever. The board is too high-minded.

I suppose a state where one is allowed to claim to be a fully licensed Itamae when one's entire training is reading the directions on the back of a kit from Target, allows people to be an ass?

[Hank Chinaski]

hi

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I suppose a state where one is allowed to claim to be a fully licensed Itamae when one's entire training is reading the directions on the back of a kit from Target, allows people to be an ass?

Well, you have to get a special license first. The Ass Permission License is a huge component in the State's budget deficit process.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Matt Yglesias responds to Hank:

The Obama Doctrine In Action: Rachel Maddow had a segment last night taking note of the remarkably rapid increase in the pace with which actual al-Qaeda leaders have been killed by US forces since President Obama’s inauguration. It reminded me that there’s a tendency, which I think is somewhat misguided, to take all of Obama’s “hawkish” actions and fold them into a narrative about continuity with Bush administration policies since Bush was also “hawkish.” There are some real continuities, but I think this business is actually an example of discontinuity.

The difference—and I think it’s a big difference—is that the Bush administration took a very ideological view of “the war on terror.” They viewed the United States as broadly in conflict with a vast-yet-hazily-defined array of Muslim Bad Guys such that Saddam Hussein and the government of Iran were somehow part of the same problem as Osama bin Laden. The conceptual alternative to this that Obama offered (and I think you see it in early coverage of Obama’s national security thinking from Spencer Ackerman and yours truly) was to think of al-Qaeda as a specific, narrow thing that ought to be obsessively targeted and destroyed. His team viewed the Iraq War as a catastrophic distraction from that task, and also repeatedly clashed with John McCain over the need to more forcefully disregard Pakistani government views about hitting targets in Pakistan. You see in the rising body count that this all wasn’t just talk. There’s been some kind of meaningful reallocation of national resources away from Bush’s geopolitical vision in favor of a much more literal global effort to identify, locate, and kill members of al-Qaeda.

This whole suite of undertakings is in significant tension with the administration’s desire to pursue a rules-based global order and if Obama asked me I’d tell him he’s tilted too far against his own big picture ideas. Still, world affairs doesn’t exist on a two-dimensional hawk/dove axis and this militaristic aspect of Obamaism should be seen as a departure from Bush’s view of the terrorism problem.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Matt Yglesias responds to Hank:

To the extent that Yglesias is describing a real difference in the approach of the two administrations (I'm not sure about that), there is no question that an approach focused on defeating AQ is the way to go.

But that doesn't answer any of the criticism about the tactics the Obama administration has used.

eta: Yglesias also says:

This returns us, I think, to a disturbing issue raised around the time of bin Laden’s killing. Wouldn’t it have discomfited the U.S. government a great deal had he surrendered? After all, it’s pretty clear that President Obama has no desire to engage in the political and legal controversies that would be posed by the capture of new high-value detainees. Having abandoned his campaign pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the president clearly would prefer for the whole issue of the legal status of detainees to go away. And a “take no prisoners” attitude toward alleged al-Qaeda ringleaders suits that agenda quite well. But you can’t give no quarters orders to soldiers. So it seems more appealing to rely on death from above via aerial drone, regardless of the consequences for due process. That, however, is not only not a question of military necessity, it’s a mighty ugly kind of political motive. Of course it’s hard to prove anything about motive, so maybe that’s not what’s driving what’s going on, but given the administration’s previous handling of detainee politics I have my suspicions.

I think is is especially true for al awlaki, whose only known public involvement is as a propagandist. Had they snatched him alive, what do they do with him? The options would seem to be send him to Gitmo and give him the full Cheney treatment, which would look terrible politically for Obama. Or try to charge him with something, to which he will respond with his first amendment rights (assuming, of course, that there is not secret evidence against him that shows operational involvement).

So all the incentives are for, "eh, blow him up, it'll be easier" and I find that pretty troubling.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Matt Yglesias responds to Hank:

well, most everyone felt Iraq was a problem (Hi Hillary!) but by the time obama got here it wasn't. So to say Obama hasn't invaded Iraq is a true, but silly thought. And to respond to me he'd have to explain why holding people w/o trial is ruining OUR rights, but blowing them up isn't (as Adder has also pointed out). He doesn't of course, he says obama has "tilted" too far, but doesn't admit his own stupidity for the simplistic arguments all of you made for 7 years.

As to the shift, one would hope there is a shift to the targeted killing, as the bigger wars have been won. By W. Want to quote someone else?

P.S. i may not respond tonight to anything more. My fav baseball team is in a playoff series. I know you have free time so wanted to give you the heads up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

He doesn't of course, he says obama has "tilted" too far, but doesn't admit his own stupidity for the simplistic arguments all of you made for 7 years.

IIRC, he supported the invasion of Iraq, but surely that's what you're referring to.

[Sidd Finch]

I'm sort of disappointed. He might have reduced the crazy quotient. He definitely would have increased the fun quotient.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm sort of disappointed. He might have reduced the crazy quotient. He definitely would have increased the fun quotient.

maybe saying he won't run because he won't appeal to the crazy is a way to start breaking the crazy stranglehold on the party. then he's begged to step back in next month.

that's how I got my modship here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

maybe saying he won't run because he won't appeal to the crazy is a way to start breaking the crazy stranglehold on the party. then he's begged to step back in next month.

that's how I got my modship here.

A few months ago that might have worked, but I think now it's too late.

As for your modship, I think I was on an extended hiatus, mainly because I was so sick of you, so.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

As for your modship, I think I was on an extended hiatus, mainly because I was so sick of you, so.....

have you seen how friendly and harmonious my board is? I can't imagine RT has any second thoughts given how well it's worked out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Finally, a Republican jobs act! Stimulus, Baby!

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

To the extent that Yglesias is describing a real difference in the approach of the two administrations (I'm not sure about that).

There's a difference. Obama is hiding his legal justification. At least Bush released the John Yoo memos.