Disqus - Latest Comments for HappySurge

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

HappySurge — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:25:12 -0000

So, just to be clear. We're agreed that they're evils. We're agreed that things like, you know, prosecuting torture would have consequences.

How again are we not agreed that torturing and making torture a policy should have consequences too?

Would you say atrocities and torture committed in Germany, Japan, or genocide or any misdeeds committed in Somalia or Rwanda were done with a nation that had its collective sanity?

If we're going to say 'this is the exception! We should not prosecute!" Then we have to make sure that the argument you're using is actually an exception. Torturing nations are very rarely in their right minds when they do it. That doesn't give people exempt status. Drunk drivers are quite literally not in their right minds, and when they hit someone, we give them harsher penalties in the United States than if they had just been bad drivers that had done it accidentally. People who put insanity up as a defense in a court, furthermore, would get it shot down if there was proof of pre-meditation, and rightness of mind to cover-up after the fact.

If we were insane when this happened, why get legal counsel? Why ignore and bury legal dissents? Why demand the continuation of torture not for any information, but for information on a specific link between Al Qaeda and Iraq so as to get more than one flaky source? Why destroy the tapes? Why try to destroy the dissent memos? Why keep reporters and the Red Cross away?

If you put up an insanity plea with what's gone on, you'd get it shot down mighty quick in prosecution.

Look, if there was a policy of torture, if it was put in place, and covered up, if legal arguments were manufactured to allow it and legal dissents to do with it buried, if it was all hidden away, and if it was all done with the purpose of fabricating a link to justify a war, then that merits inquiry, investigation, and prosecution.

It's not just a matter of punishing people. It's a matter of finding out the truth. What was the government really after when it administered these policies? What is the bigger picture? If it was about the best interests of that nation, let them make that argument publicly and in court. And not in the sense of 'torture works', but in the sense of 'these are the means we were working toward, and this is why they were important to this country.' This country needs to know not only what it did, but why.

And you don't do that by moving on. You don't torture someone for the purpose of producing specific information regarding a non-urgent link so as to justify an invasion and a second war, and just move on from that. That's not a ticking time bomb. That's not a few bad apples. That's not collective insanity.

If you're going to argue against prosecution based on this being an exception, then prove that it is an exception. I think you'll find for each piece of reasoning not to prosecute, you can take that reasoning and re-apply it elsewhere and see exactly how ridiculous it seems at times.

I think there is a case to be made on behalf of the administration, not that they were acting in the best interests of this nation, nor that they were freaked out. But rather, like the 26 percent of their supporters that stood there till the very end, they found that spot inside of themselves where they could justify torture rather than just denying it took place. Maybe there was a trauma produced in this country, and these officials fell into it. But that's a case to be made in the process of an investigation.

And it's still not exceptional. All countries that strayed did it with a mass of supporters. That hasn't stopped prosecution or investigation of them.

Now that we have our sanity back, maybe we should have our law and its enforcement back too.

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

HappySurge — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:17:14 -0000

Dennis, I'm sorry. I can't seem to remember. What was your stance on the Iraq War? Moreover, I could be wrong, but weren't you quite a stringent supporter of the Republican Party line and George W. Bush for several years?

My point here is not to dismiss your criticism, but to point out that there's more than one way to make mistakes and reach the wrong and/or damaging conclusions about things.

Your criticism of Andrew Sullivan is apt. He always get extremely passionate about everything, and it makes him very blind at times, to the reality of the alternate point of view. You had to support the war. Then you had to recognize it was awful. You had to support, and then you had to be outraged. Everything had to be done at an absolute level. When things seemed to be progressing (the surge), Andrew was already being overly optimistic about touting an exit as closer and perhaps more blood-free.

Your assessment of that flaw is pretty accurate. However, it's important to remember that it's not the only cognitive flaw that exists, and that a person can be mistaken even in moments of moderacy.

*I'm not being coy with the Iraq War comment. I actually can't remember what your stance is. I suspect it was for, perhaps a nuanced for, but I can't say for sure so I am writing in part for clarification.

Re: Obama's Press Conference: Takes Strong Stand Against Blagojevich

HappySurge — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:27:19 -0000

How many times do we have to go through this? How many times is the press going to go about the same business? Why aren't we investigating Obama's ties to Dollar Bill in La., Elliot Spitzer in NY, John Edwards or Michael Moore, just for kicks! I mean, they're liberals that some people disapprove of, for their infidelities, corruption or for their filmaking. Clearly, we should be looking at Obama's involvement with every dirty left-winger ever. I mean, he's going to be serving as President of a country with these sorts of people living in it? That's very suspicious.

But I guess if you can ring the bell and make the dog drool, you don't have to worry about producing the meat any more.

Re: Obama And Governor Soprano

HappySurge — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:15:17 -0000

He said the same thing about Bill Ayers throughout. He served on a board with him, and Ayers committed the acts when Obama was 8 years old. That was Obama's tag-line from the get. On Wright, he didn't ignore anything. A story was pushed which he didn't think was a big issue, but it became a major issue, and he addressed it with a speech on race. It was a story that lasted weeks-months in its progression. This happened within a matter of days. Obama's reaction was to point out to the tragedy of it for the State of Illinois and to call for his resignation. There's no reason to create this well-structured time-line and try to fit everything together. The stages don't fit all the scenarios, and the time-span was different on all of them. If you want a good stage set-up, try the one that ends with a Republican pointing out how politically polished Obama is in responding to guilt-by-association scandals. Stage 1: Wonder why Obama isn't commenting. Stage 2: Why did it take a whole set of hours for Obama to comment? Stage 3: Obama always does this! Stage 4: Obama lived in the same country as this man for YEARS! Oh, and remember to always say how you "take Obama at his word, it's just that he surrounds himself with all these seedy people! How can he be trusted? No, but I trust him. I'm just saying, I don't know how I do it!" It's always tinged with this undercurrent of Obama being a crook, but has there been one thing from any of these scandals that actually reflected a rotten core in Obama? No, none. Because at the heart of these scandals and their links to Obama is nothing. The man, among other things, is the cleanest man to run for and win the elected office of President of the United States in ages. And that's with a past of drug-use and lawyering.

Re: Obama's Presidency Likely To Mean Return Of More Consensus In Politics

HappySurge — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:10:09 -0000

Joe Gandelman, he didn't get the most of any candidate since LBJ. He got the most of any candidate in American history.

Re: Welcoming Ken Duberstein to the Traitor's List

HappySurge — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:19:51 -0000

And so it goes.

Re: Test Your Prognostication!

HappySurge — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:29:25 -0000

California: 55
Colorado: 9
Conneticut: 7
Delaware: 3
Washington, D.C.: 3
Florida: 27
Georgia: 15
Hawaii: 4
Illinois: 21
Iowa: 7
Louisiana: 9
Maine: 3
Maryland: 10
Massachusetts
Michigan: 17
Minnesota: 10
Missouri: 11
Montana: 3
Nebraska: 2
Nevada: 5
New Hampshire: 4
New Jersey: 15
New Mexico: 5
New York: 31
North Carolina: 15
North Dakota: 3
Ohio: 20
Oregon: 7
Pennsylvania: 21
Rhode Island: 4
Vermont: 3
Virginia: 13
Washington: 11
Wisconsin: 10

This is roughly how I see him getting there. The upset being Montana, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and North Dakota. I wanted to say Arizona to, but I think that would just be brutal. I wish Obama had done more to push for Texas, but there's always 2012, I guess.

Re: Test Your Prognostication!

HappySurge — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:26:40 -0000

Electoral: Obama- 395, McCain-143
Popular: Obama-53%, MCain-44%
Senate: 60 Dems, 40 Republicans
House: 271 Dems, 164 Republicans

I think my electoral guess is way overestimating it for Obama. The popular vote margin feels right to me. I think McCain, on the whole, will wind up underperforming in blue states in a way that will severely damage his overall vote-count.

The House number is quite honestly pulled from nowhere. I just think Dems are going to get the maximum number. They beat out so many expectations in 2006. Likewise that being my logic for the Senate count.

I got my electoral vote count by adding up all the states I thought Obama had a decent chance of winning, and saying, 'well, look at 2006', and going right ahead and putting it in his column.

I will be very wrong, and I will give my friends much more conservative estimates so I can seem smart to them.

Re: Recap of the last debate

HappySurge — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:58:56 -0000

I was just playing, Jazz. I'm very giddy tonight. It's an all right slip to make, I guess. Just glaring in the context of how central that was.

Re: Recap of the last debate

HappySurge — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:41:38 -0000

For the record, Bob was a builder. Joe was a plumber.

Re: Recap of the last debate

HappySurge — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:38:20 -0000

It's "Joe the Plumber." Maybe it says more about your analysis that you couldn't remember a name put forward about 90 times in a debate. Maybe if I watched the debated as closely as that, I'd also think John McCain was the winner...

Re: Here comes the RAIN: “My Muslim Faith…”

HappySurge — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:42:27 -0000

I know you're not, T-Steel. But let's be honest. There's a reason she forwarded that article.

Re: Here comes the RAIN: “My Muslim Faith…”

HappySurge — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:08:31 -0000

Oh, Holly in Cincinatti, really? The person that's been smearing which candidate in particular for the last several months?

Oh, that's right. Barack Obama.

Re: Why Is John McCain Acting So Desperate?

HappySurge — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:29:33 -0000

You know, a lot of times, I read the posts here, and I think 'well, this is gonna get hit with bias', and with Shaun, we always know where he stands. The thing is, he has the benefit of being correct on the facts. When I see the posters respond to this, particularly neocon and superdestroyer and DLS in a way that I could write up on their behalf, I can't help but think they might be trolls. Because, I can't imagine that anyone can look at America now and see the failures of the Bush administration as just a mass media creation. Our country, its dollar, its military, and a lot of its future has been destroyed by this President, and his policies, and John McCain wants to further those policies.

The only hope with John McCain was that while he agreed with these policies, he might be more competent at carrying them out. That's it. That's damage control, essentially. What I'm asking is, if you're not trolls, how can you deal with supporting and being apologists for the people and policies that have spent, and will continue to spend, years destroying our country in their actions. I mean, I just can't imagine having a Democratic President who put their principles and plans in place, and it all collapsed, and the country was clearly rotting out from itself because of it, and me going 'no, no, see, this is why this guy is awesome!' And that's essentially what you're doing. I don't understand it.

So, I'm honestly asking: are you guys just trolls or do you mean it? And if you mean it, where have you been living? I live in a town that is disproportionately Republican because it's got more elderly middle class whites than most. But it's been a long time since I've seen anyone say how great this country is doing, or how we're headed to the right place or how easy it is to heat their homes, or get to and from work, or live their lives with the gambit thrown on them.

I just don't understand it. I get how you could not like liberal policies, but I don't have a remote understanding of how you can support policies and people that have done this much damage to the country. I mean, when you look at your fellow citizens, don't you see any pain in them, aren't you shaken at all by it? I don't understand, unless you spent your life with blinders on, how you could think the way you do, and support the policies you support in the face of such clear and absolute failure.

Re: Vote Inflation

HappySurge — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:55:40 -0000

Every day that we look for new places to drill, that delays the day we will rid ourselves of our dependency on oil.

The idea that people somehow put faith and stock in Bush and oil that deny it to them otherwise is blinded to the fact that economists forced them to essentially admit that it won't work, and their argument hinges on it being a long term solution, but it isn't.

In ten years, it might save you a penny. Oil is the past. It shouldn't dominate our energy. Wind, solar, nuclear, whatever it takes. Oil can be a part of it, but drilling is just delay. It puts us in the same situation we are in now ten years from now. If you want to pass that buck again, then you can go ahead and tout it, but I don't think this generation will go with you.

Re: Knock, Knock.

HappySurge — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:27:14 -0000

Look, I'm really sorry if you intended it another way, but it comes off all wrong. It comes off like a repeat of a cheap political attack and it comes off as giving ownership of the country exclusively to those that wear flag lapel pins.

I think, at heart, it was just a misguided post that tried to say something that maybe isn't worth saying, or puts you into a place where you're dealing to far with the wrong to ever realistically be in the right.

I don't mean to pile on here, but I read that and it didn't feel right at all, and I'm sorry if I over-reacted, or if what I took wasn't your intent.

Re: Knock, Knock.

HappySurge — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:10:56 -0000

'Suppose a candidate was trying to win the votes of bowlers.'

But he's not. He's not trying to win factions. He's trying to win Americans, and most Americans don't wear flag lapel pins, and a large amount of those that do are partaking in empty gestures.

It's a false analogy and you should get nothing but flack for it.

Also, he said wearing the flag lapel was too often becoming a replacement for patriotism.

What is your post about? About Obama trying to win the flag lapel pin crowd? Who are they? Who are these people? I am an American, and I haven't seen one single person actually wearing a flag lapel pin that wasn't a politician or a businessman, so who are you talking about?

This post of yours does nothing but imply that the only true Americans are the ones that wear flag lapel pins, and that the only criticism of Obama on flag lapels is coming from people who actually wear them, neither of which are true.

It's really the most misguided thing I've seen on here so far.

What good does your post do? What truth does it tell?

"After the World Trade Center horror, Americans and their friends started their own club, meeting together to help each other through the grief."

Not some Americans wore flag lapel pins. AMERICANS and their friends...

You are writing as though 90 percent of this country decided to all wear flag lapel pins when the opposite is more or less true.

It's a lie. It serves to spread vindictive bile about an issue which is really about character defamation and about attacking patriotism which means all this post can acheive is a smear-attack on Obama.

There's no substantive claim in there; no new look at the issue. It is a repeat of a disgusting attack delivered without accountability or sense.

Re: Um …

HappySurge — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:48:05 -0000

She means if you don't give Obama votes from MI.

Look, she'll make her argument, but we don't know. She could be dropping out tomorrow or in June, but it's over now.

I know myself and Mr. Abel have been traumatized gravely by this primary season, but I recommend just relaxing and waking up sometime around September for the General Election.The first trek is over, my friend, we can breathe a little easier now.

Re: Knock, Knock.

HappySurge — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:39:33 -0000

You know how you could tell the members of that club, sugar? By being in America and looking around you, cause we're all members of that club, because we're all Americans, and if you think we need a flag lapel pin to be entitled to feel greif or care about our brothers or sisters that died on September 11th or that died in Iraq or that come home and die because no one looks out for them, or that die in our streets, then you don't understand the concept of a nation, of a citizenry. You don't tell the members of the club by their lapel pin. You tell it by the fact that you're in this country, and so are they.

Americans, that's who felt it.

Seriously, this is way, way below the standards of the moderate voice, and I think this is probably one of the worst things I have ever read. I normally wouldn't care to chastise a columnist on the Voice, but this is ridiculous.

What? You look at the people that don't wear a pin and go 'oh, you must not care about America?' What are you trying to say? What are you trying to accomplish? This is disgusting.

You literally followed all the rules of a terrible smear: you used a folksy story to open, you proposed that these feelings weren't your own, but that you sympathize, and you just spread it, on no inherent logic, casting the idea that all the people, and only the people that wear flag lapel pins are identifiable as loving their country. Good job throwing any credibility you have away.

Re: Knock, Knock.

HappySurge — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:33:51 -0000

Actually, most Americans aren't in that club, because most Americans don't wear flag lapel pins. A flag lapel pin isn't a tradition. Free speech is a tradition. 2nd Amendment rights and their protection is a tradition. Our constitution, our laws, our holidays, those are traditions.

You're a smear-merchant, that's your tradition.

Flag lapel pins? A club? Honestly? Let's forget that Obama has worn the pin sometimes and other times not, and let's forget that the reason he didn't wear it is that it's become a replacement for patriotism as opposed to a symbol for it; a crutch as you will.

Let's focus on the fact that you just used 9/11 and the thousands that died for the purpose of a political attack about flag lapel pins.

Maybe you should figure out how you're going to live with that.

Re: Now Here’s A Democratic Unity Ticket Fer Ya

HappySurge — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:39:25 -0000

Well, not really SD. The point is to attract moderate Republicans, and Chuck Hagel is a sort-of, you could say, because of the Iraq war, kind of, sometime, moderate for a Republican guy, so he would appeal to them...

But that is a good point in the way it is a bad point.

Why did the Republicans nominate someone so despised by their own party?

Re: Hardball Host Chris Matthews Obliterates Conservative Talk Show Host On Bush’s Obama “Appeasement” Charge

HappySurge — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:25:38 -0000

No, but seriously Austin, you say 'I don't presume to know.' But the President isn't an abstract artist. We should know. Otherwise, we're conceding that what he says is as insignificant as garbage, where we shouldn't be bothered with the particulars of it.

What I'm basically saying is I have no problem with Bush attacking Obama, if he did it directly and accurately. He's got a fair place to disagree with Obama, but he has to do his argument justice if he is to do it internationally or even domestically. If his problem is not with Obama, he needs to point to whom he is actually referring. Otherwise, he's fighting a strawman that doesn't exist.

Re: Hardball Host Chris Matthews Obliterates Conservative Talk Show Host On Bush’s Obama “Appeasement” Charge

HappySurge — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:21:14 -0000

What is this 'both sides' business? Debate programs don't work on television because they're dishonest shoutfests or on PBS. See: Crossfire. The trouble is they don't have experts or master-thinkers operate shows and debates. They have party hacks. Bill Buckley & Noam Chomsky work because they hold political beleifs, but they are not themselves just political hacks defined solely by their allegiances. They are people who study this, who built their lives being experts on intelligently ascertaining issues.

If you want intelligent debates on issues, you'd literally have experts on those issues and in those fields answering and asking the questions.

Re: Hardball Host Chris Matthews Obliterates Conservative Talk Show Host On Bush’s Obama “Appeasement” Charge

HappySurge — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:10:42 -0000

"Talk"...

I love it. Let's forget Reagan and the Soveits. Let's forget Nixon & China. Yes, we can't possibly "talk" to our enemies...

Come on, guys. Austin, though, you know what I'm getting at. This is a case where you say 'all right, yeah, that was pretty stupid' and move on, because there's not really a good case to be made.

If the President wanted to say he disagreed with Obama, he should point out why he disagrees with the President having direct talks, and then explain why that is valid. So, he'd not only say 'well, it legitimizes our enemies.' He'd say 'well, see, these other things don't.' Basically, there's an argument to be made, but it's not being pursued fully or honestly.

If the President could say 'these talks will have a negative impact on us, and here's why, and here's why the alternatives are less negative', then I don't think he'd get much flack for it.

Using a strawman, however, just makes his actual claims weaker.

It's like he's counting on people being stupid enough that only the sparknotes version of the discussion will do. He should invest some time into actually communicating his qualms to the American people in a way that doesn't assume we need abridged idiocy.

Re: Hardball Host Chris Matthews Obliterates Conservative Talk Show Host On Bush’s Obama “Appeasement” Charge

HappySurge — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:51:43 -0000

Now, hold on a second Austin. Was Bush referring to actual people and if so, then to which people specifically? What I'm asking is, 'okay, if Bush was not referring to Obama, then who was he referring to?' The extension of that is who actually has, in the United States, a policy of appeasement (not diplomancy) towards Iran?

What I'm trying to get at here is the outrage is because Bush not only took a pot-shot at Obama, but mischaracterized him as Nelville Chamberlein's house of appeasement. However, if you say the statement is not about Obama, then who is he talking about? If the answer is people who have a policy of appeasement towards Iran that are part of the US government, then he is not talking about anyone.

He is talking about a mythical character.

Appeasement is quite literally giving someone else whatever they want so that they won't hurt you. Diplomacy is the act of developing mutual wants. The point of diplomacy is not to avert a threat, but to lay the foundations for influence and partnership. That is, quite literally, appeasement would be if Iran was actually capable of conquering another country, and we let them do it so that they wouldn't hurt us or our allies. Diplomacy is the act of sitting down with Iran and talking about nuclear policy, about the war in Iraq, about a whole host of things, and finding the places where our interests are common, and developing wants for Iran to see.

The President's flaw, then, is that if he is speaking about someone, then he is mischaracterizing what they are doing and confusing diplomacy with appeasement. If he is not, however, then he is simply speaking about a nothing; about no one.

Appeasement doesn't work, but not every country we ever meet is Nazi Germany. Negotiations and diplomacy sometimes work (see: Reagan/Soviet Union, Nixon/China, FDR/Soviet Union), and sometimes they do not. War sometimes provides resolution, but often times fails, at the largest cost (Vietnam, Iraq).

You cannot throw diplomacy or negotiations off the table, however, because they are preventative. They prevent the biggest plague on human beings in terms of money, progress and lives: warfare. No one wants World War II or World War I or a Civil War. It does not follow that we give up everything to prevent it. It does not follow, either, however, that we try nothing else.

American adults are dying in Iraq, and coming home and killing themselves here. They have massive injuries. They are being misdiagnosed to push them back into the field. There are very few looking out for them or their families, and all it appears to be is a minmizing of fiscal loss despite the fact that these soldiers are entitled to the full ride. The thing is, this is the cost of the war, and it is worth measures of diplomacy, negotations, and direct talks to prevent these costs.