You can call BS all you want so long as you disagree with a viewpoint. I openly oppose Obama's policies -- I have nothing against the man -- but in your opinion this makes me a shill and disengenuous? Of course, I am always policking and seeking to discredit policies with which I disagree. If you want someone to agree with you all the time, write yourself love notes. The reason I post here is to get reasoned responses -- for or against -- to my responses to either hone or modify my views.
No, what makes you a shill and disingenuous is that you hide your "open opposition" behind threads about things such as, oh, I dunno, Castro's latest interview.
Comments like these are the ones that lead me to believe you are either misguided or deluded. Every single action taken by the Democrats in the last two years has included some kind of olive branch from Obama to the GOP, in some cases nearly begging them to contribute instead of obstructing. He held a seven hour long, televised summit on healthcare and the only thing the GOP said, over and over again, was "clean sheet of paper," a position that was laughable. It is because of Obama's repeated attempts at bipartisanship that I think the same way Deckard does, Obama should just thumb his nose at the GOP and get things done. I suspect that if he had done it during the debate over HCR and we had ended up with a public option of some kind, he would be in better shape politically and the country would be in better shape financially and morally.
It's not an assumption at all. It's factual observation. I mean, Deckard already laid this out quite neatly. You posed a topic, and then ignored it totally so that you could get on your tea-party soap box. LAME.
You see it that way. I don't. Where he was holding out an olive branch generally was where he couldn't get the Blue Dog Democrats to buy it. That difference of opinion is what makes political races.
Lame is ignoring what Castro said. I merely seized on Castro's criticism of bureaucracy in his government to compare the same problem in our government. Please tell me where I narrowed that critical comparison to Obama or any other specific President.
1. I don't think anyone should infer that Castro is regretting the revolution. For one, he says "anymore." For another, he seems to only be talking about the economic system. I'm sure he's still proud of tossing out Battista and the imperialists and keeping Cuba free. It really just sounds like he's trying to support efforts at reform. It's not too earth-shattering. 2. I don't know if one should compare Cuban bureaucracy with American. They have their own set of problems because their government has a very different role in their economy. 3. Normalizing relations with Cuba could be a second-term agenda for Obama. Doing it before re-election would be murder (for me listening to all the cold warriors on TV somehow trying to tell me it is still relevant).
I gave my comment in post 3 and I stand by it. As long as merely means "jumped on it as soon as possible since this was obviously my motive all along" then yes, I agree. I did not say you did - you're far to disingenuous for that.
1) I agree he doesn't regret taking power, but I do believe there are actions he would have done differently (all humanity loves hindsight). I deduce that from his statement that "communism doesn't even work for us anymore." However, IMO for a dictator wanting to reform his own government is rather earth shaking if not shattering. 2) Bureaucracy is the bane of all forms of government -- with efficiency in that regard as rare as lillies at the north pole. I'm not saying bureaucracy should be eliminated but certainly reduced to where it can enforce assigned duties and responsibilities. 3) Agree completely. I want to see "warm relations" restored, but now unfortunately is not the time. IMO this is a situation where gradualism wins out over sudden impact.
Not at all surprising, given that Goldberg took a brief quip from Castro and extrapolated via his interpreter. Journalism...pshhhhh.
Uh. No. I never related what you said to Obama and so, when you asked for proof that you said such a sentiment I replied that, well, that I never related what you said to Obama. I sincerely hope that you are trying to be funny, because otherwise you're acting very stupid.
rhadamanthus, what is going on with you? I remember you as a much more civilized poster. thumbs has been calm throughout this thread, yet you continue with the personal attacks. Deckard also disagrees with thumbs, but in a much different way. I have disagreed with Deckard on issues, but, like thumbs, really respect him.
Thumbs has a history of feigning interest in an unrelated topic so that he can spout off about whatever is currently popular on his teabagger email list. I usually ignore it, because in the past I have repeatedly been aggravated at his inability to acknowledge simple facts that run counter to his purview or discuss things with a rational, honest, and intellectual basis (the search function is capable of proving this). In this case, I guess I got irritated because this was an interesting topic (note the past tense - as I suspected, Goldberg was taking a few liberties) and thumbs rather brazenly stated that he was hoping for good discussion on Cuba-USA relations...only to immediately go off on some bizarre analogy about bureaucracy. Obviously, his essay was intended to push the conversation into some weird tea party universe, but he's been ripped a new one in that regard so often here that he is no longer honest enough to just admit the tactic when called out on it. Furthermore, I think it fairly ridiculous of you to chastise me about insults (these are hardly insults, they are accusations with evidence), given your long history with vlaurelio and our own recent version of thread PMS. A lot of things that you say are, I think, unfair or, at worst, bigoted. But you explain them and rationalize them and honestly defend them. I can respect that. Thumbs likes to hide behind all sorts of innuendo and misdirection - if finally called out on these tactics he has a tendency to complain that he is being ill-treated. It's maddening.
I didn't chastise you, I was just wondering because in both these threads, it seemed to be you being angry already when posting in the thread the first time. I don't get into it only with vlaurelio, but pretty much with everyone who is up for it :grin:.
You keep making these assumptions -- without proof or fact -- hoping people will believe you. When I confront you, you just claim I'm too devious and continue your delusion. The "innuendo and misdirection" are all in your head. Signed, Moriarty.
