TCS Daily


Frankensteins, or Davids?

By James K. Glassman - April 23, 2009 12:00 AM

Evgeny Morozov's thoughtful piece in Boston Review on Cyber Utopia, which I found through John Brown's admirable blog, gives bows to Clay Shirky and Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society and places some nice emphasis on our favorite subject, Public Diplomacy 2.0. The piece begins with this 20-year-old quote from Ronald Reagan: "The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip." Morozov then reviews the recent bidding — the enthusiasm over the ability of the Internet, and especially social networking — to bring salutary social and political results (he quotes me, for instance, as saying, admittedly with some hyperventilation: "We feel that around the world, young people are using the Internet to push back against violence in a new way, using social networking, convening large groups to have conversations, basically, to share information.")

But Morozov brings some appropriate sketicism to the endeavor. He concludes this way:

Western governments, caught up in the heady cyber-utopianism of the last two decades, face a dilemma. Without their investments in blogs, blog aggregators, and video blogs in far-away but geopolitically important places, the online voices of the West's favorite secular and democratic forces would not carry much weight. Yet, investing in new media infrastructure might also embolden the conservatives, nationalists, and extremists, posing an even greater challenge to democratization. A brief look at the emerging cyber-nationalism in Russia and China provides a taste of things to come.

The problem with building public spheres from above, online or offline, is much like that of building Frankenstein's monsters: we may not like the end product. This does not mean we should give up on the Internet as a force for democratization, only that we should ditch the blinding ideology of technological determinism and focus on practical tasks. Figuring out how the Internet could benefit existing democratic forces and organizations—very few of which have exhibited much creativity on the Web—would not be a bad place to start.

His reservations are well taken, but I disagree. We engage in the Public Diplomacy 2.0 endeavor, the Grand Conversation, because we have a confidence that ideals like tolerance, free choice, respect, and democracy will, in a wide-open and fair discussion, triumph. Is this naive? I don't think so.

Violent extremists, for example, are cult operators. They recruit their foot soldiers, isolate them, and bombard them with exhortation and ideology. Doubt is the enemy of terrorists, and exposure in a social-networking climate breeds doubt. The same goes, for non-violent extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and perhaps even for the Chinese and Russian nationalists that Morozov fears. Let the light in, I say. And that is what Web 2.0 does. Still, the debate that the author suggests is well worth having.


This article first appeared on JamesKGlassman.com.
Categories:

73 Comments

"Meanwhile, the desire for popularity has led Mr. Obama to embrace bad policies."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html

The good news is that when he starts becoming unpopular he will rush to get out in front and look like he led the way, just like the last narcissist in office, Clinton.
Real leadership is occurring at the grass roots facilitated by the WWW.

spoken like a true cheerleader
Nice one marjon, you link to an article by the whiner Karl Rove. And wow is it full of crybaby invective and its own high sense of narcissism. When are you right wing idiots going to figure out there is more to this than just tearing down your opposition? The dog food factories you morons constructed are still running around the clock despite the fact you're becoming weaker in the "culture war". You're on your back desperately kicking at the air. See, only dogs eat dog food, your BS isn't palatable to most people. I would think you would get tired of being a joke, of showing your true craziness with the tea bagger circus, and your obvious, dare I say, ODS. Its taken you less than 100 days to break down in a littany of spoiled whining.


"Real leadership is occurring at the grass roots facilitated by the WWW."

Like Palin? Talk about a superstar. I'm just waiting for her appearance on Oprah so she can set the record straight, again. Go Palin! I hope she is your candidate in 2012, it will be fun to watch the circus continue.

The irony is thick, you're absolutely right with that statement about real leadership. Which candidate used the WWW and had overwhelming support from the grass roots in the last election?

Tearing down opponents
The left led the way the past eight years trying to tear down their opposition, and they continue the process even though they 'won'.

I am sure Rush appreciates being attacked by the White House. I wonder of they have ever read Tar Baby?

Free markets work
Free markets in ideas as well as goods and services has been proven to be the most robust and successful system.

Jesus launched a grassroots campaign that has been successful for 2000 years.

Top down coercive methods have ultimately failed because those at the top do not have perfect knowledge.

The internet is another tool like the Gutenberg press which empowers the grassroots.
BHO may have been able to rally some grassroots support to be elected, but when he starts governing like the Soviets, his grassroots will die off quickly.

Those raised with the internet will not appreciate the heavy hand of BHOs control.

Watch the bell ring and see the dolt drool.
"The irony is thick, you're absolutely right with that statement about real leadership. Which candidate used the WWW and had overwhelming support from the grass roots in the last election?"

And which candidate had vigilantist thugs at polling places and which candidate had a record of uneven contributions that indicate illegal foreign contributions (odd amounts often being the result of foreign currency conversions)...

By the "BJ" , you guys really need to get over your Palin obsession, because until Obama can read without a teleprompter (check out the youtube video of his war on "privacy" freudian slip?) we'll just suspect you really are sitting in your bedrooms at night with flashlights and picxtures of Palin.

Nice job though, anybody questions your pied piper and you immediately snarl at Palin.. ring the bell and BJ drools..






The Cybersecurity Act
Thanks for finding this, Joanie. It hasn't been showing up on the radar.

It's monstrously subject to abuse. And even though the bill's sponsors cheerily chirp that the hazards will all be found and the holes plugged during the debate process, it's obvious that the ACT can be used as a club to harm us just as readily as it can a shield to protect us.

Here's the proposal: "To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes."

"And for other purposes" has an obvious meaning.

I suspect enthusiasts on all sides of the political spectrum will be up in arms over the prospect of Big Brother looking over our shoulders in the guise of protecting our interests. And I look forward to reading the comments to the article (193 so far) to see what Mother Jones readers think of it.

The bill in whatever form will be far too easily misused. Best to leave all this unspoken, and to wait until we really do have a cyber threat to our security. Then whoever's president can just use his implicit extraordinary powers to address the problem.

BTW do you have any idea what Glassman is talking about in his article here? I can't understand a word of it.

It's inexorable
No matter what the question is, your answer is always more "free markets". I'm impressed with how you can fit your idee fixe to any need.

So how well did a free, unregulated market in financial derivatives work for us? We left those boys to cook up anything they wanted to, didn't we?

And what they baked for us was more IOUs than there exists money on the face of the earth. So much bad debt we have no way of even counting it. Yay, free markets!

Let’s see; what’s one widely known idea from Jesus that even non-Christians are likely to know?
Answer: Show the other cheek, even for the most evil one of them.

So Marjon, are you saying the world has come this far by showing the other cheek to the evil?

On a personal note, I think you can’t talk in His name, as you aren’t capable of showing even the “figurative” other cheek. Your ad hominem attacks on me are proof of that.

What 'free' market are you talking about?

His kingdom was not of this earth.
"Christ gave an account of the nature of his kingdom. Its nature is not worldly; it is a kingdom within men, set up in their hearts and consciences; its riches spiritual, its power spiritual, and it glory within. Its supports are not worldly; its weapons are spiritual; it needed not, nor used, force to maintain and advance it, nor opposed any kingdom but that of sin and Satan."

http://bible.cc/john/18-36.htm

Note how Jesus never advocated the use of force. He practiced persuasion.

Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

As for personal attacks, I do believe you initiated such attacks. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

The first tea parties will not be the last.
WWW is being used to organize more tea parties to oppose oppressive government.

A free and robust press inspired those who created our Constitution and the free and robust world wide web continues to promote free markets and liberty.

BHO earned a slight majority of votes so what 'overwhelming' support are you talking about?

"wait until we really do have a cyber threat to our security." Too late.
You don't think it has been happening for the past several years?

more David than F
Sure there will always be some nut cases useing a free medium, but overall the internet has been instrumental in braking down propaganda that the state pushes through it's corrupt school systems, and mostly MSM.

Governments hate it that people can organize and debate without big brothers involvment, but they have to hold their noses for the most part. Only a few places like red china with its 'great fire-wall', still make pathetic attempts to stifle it.

You're being purposely obtuse
We are most certainly doing all we need to be doing now to identify and respond to cyber problems.. hacking, worms DOS attacks and the like. No additional legislation is needed. It comes under the blanket of ordinary security measures. And it's something you would assume we've been quietly doing all along.

This bill is a stalking horse for something else. As a libertarian you should see it without my having to point it out to you. And you should be alarmed. It's an intrusion into the private sphere by federal regulators. People who might decide they needed to license (or withhold licensing) to anyone who wanted to put content onto the web. For example.

The way the thing is written, a sitting president could decide to do that and be quite "legal".

I hope so
I'm a fan of the concept of the tea parties, I'm just extremely disappointed in the whackos that showed up for them. Its just fact that the general population is uninformed and easily ginned up. Fox does its job of both pretty well for the doggies. Its laughable to call the tea parties grassroots, Fox was promoting it for weeks, they even called it the "FNC Tea Parties". The vast majority of the people who showed up appeared and sounded like Fox zombies. I did however like Fox's coverage that day, they kept trying to equate the events as moderate, which, turned out to be false, but I liked the effort.

I do hope there will be more tea parties. It will go down one of two ways: it very well may be effective and turn grassroots, or it will continue to showcase the clowns, the ignorance and insanity of many of the right's choicest cuts of common morons. I don't see how you guys aren't embarrassed by it, but, you don't recognize the joke conservatism has become. You'd have nothing if you didn't have an enemy.


"A free and robust press inspired those who created our Constitution and the free and robust world wide web continues to promote free markets and liberty."

Well said marjon. I'll cheerlead for you on that statement. But I think free markets have a rocky road directly ahead after what the big banks have done to us after they had their leashes loosened. Fraud is the biggest enemy of free markets.


"BHO earned a slight majority of votes so what 'overwhelming' support are you talking about?"

You sure about that? Check out how his margin of victory compares with other elections, you'll see it was a landslide comparably.

The next Republican who wins the Presidential election will be the one who is able to appeal to moderates. Unfortunately for him that will alienate the "base". What a conundrum.

Hey, at least it takes a bell ring
"And which candidate had vigilantist thugs at polling places and which candidate had a record of uneven contributions that indicate illegal foreign contributions (odd amounts often being the result of foreign currency conversions)..."

What? What are you talking about? You're on auto-drool Heater.


I'm the one obsessed with Palin? She is kinda hot, and you know she's horny, having kids at her age, and a teenage daughter having a kid too. Like mother like daughter, they love to rattle it around.
And that has nothing to do with her ability to govern. She opened the door by constantly talking about her family, as if it has anything to do with her ability to govern.
I didn't snarl at Palin, I made fun of her and people like yourself who hold her on that pedestal. Perhaps I should have brought up your other hero instead, and Palin's future VP candidate- Joe the Plumber! :)

What 'whackos'?
Like the guy with his son being ridiculed by a the ditsy CNN info babe?

"You sure about that? Check out how his margin of victory compares with other elections, you'll see it was a landslide comparably.

53% to 46% is a landslide? Less than 10 million votes.

The best way is to hire the best hackers.
And keep it very quiet.

I agree no legislation is required.

You are opposed to federal regulators? Since when?

You trust the the free market to protect the internet?
Your internet service provider and web sites you visit have an incentive to protect your privacy on the web.

Why don't you trust the government to protect you? You trust the government to protect you from other 'greedy' businesses.

For the umpteenth time..
..I'm posting this Youtube link for the Obama/Black Panther Connection Deniers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

"And that has nothing to do with her ability to govern. She opened the door by constantly talking about her family, as if it has anything to do with her ability to govern."

Yeah, and you Obama supporters don't want to talk about 'ability to govern' given how Palin is an ACTUAL GOVERNOR with ACTUAL EXECUTIVE experience that Obama didn't have.

So, it's trashing Bristol Palin instead.

Add 'landside' to BJ's incompetent use of words like 'filibuster'
"The next Republican who wins the Presidential election will be the one who is able to appeal to moderates"

We don't need to appeal to moderates. We just need the Dem to scare off the moderates. That's already happening. Amongst all voters experiencing 'buyer's remorse' for electing Obama, it is the moderates who dominate.

When the hyperinflation hits, it will be a helluva lot more of them in that camp, too.

You really have to ask?
"Like the guy with his son being ridiculed by a the ditsy CNN info babe?"

As a matter of fact, no, I would say that guy is not an example of the whackos. Try again. Its not like looking for Waldo.


"53% to 46% is a landslide? Less than 10 million votes."

Exactly, 9.5 million voters! Thats the popular vote, and if you do some research you'll learn the last election won by that many popular votes was Reagan in his second term. Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, a freshman Senator, in his first national election matched Reagan in his re-election attempt. Hardly a close race. How will you spin that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

We could look at electoral college too if you prefer, thats what matters in the end. But you probably don't want to look at that either, Obama 68% to McCain's 32%. You poor fool.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Its not me slapping you, its reality. But you just won't wake up.

Excellent
"We don't need to appeal to moderates. We just need the Dem to scare off the moderates. That's already happening. Amongst all voters experiencing 'buyer's remorse' for electing Obama, it is the moderates who dominate."

It makes me happy to see you think that. Not that I want Demoncrats to rule forever, I just don't want idiot conservatives to ever have any power again. And attitudes like this will ensure it. Nice work Z.

Buyer's remorse eh? His approval has dropped a precipitous 3 points since week 1, is that what you're referring to? Again, your ability to rationalize your failure will ensure your continued failure. Carry on.

Nice!
You're so right! Two guys at one polling place PROVES a link between Obama and the Black Panthers, AND it proves there were Obama thugs intimidating voters all across the country. Thank you so much for umpteenth time Z, you're a true fascist.


We could have talked about "ability to govern" all you wanted, it would have lasted five seconds because its a valid point. Executive experience is ideal, Clinton had it afterall. But its not the harbinger. Obama had none of it, but it didn't matter that much. One is pretty foolish to ignore the interviews and speeches and debates and achievement because of a single factor of executive experience. I agree its ideal, but W had executive experience, so that really damaged the value of it. Wouldn't you know, McCain didn't have any either. Is that why he lost? You do know McCain was the candidate right?

The worst kind of fool is one who never learns. I pity the fool. Rationalize it.

I saw no whakos at tea parties.
Like the narcissistic president that the democrats elected last time, BHO will have a difficult time upholding any of his socialistic principles when he starts losing the 'moderates'.

Those 10 million will be very important in 2010.

Oh, so they were there to intimidate Obama voters from voting?
"Obama had none of it, but it didn't matter that much."

Speak for yourself. It matters to the rest of us sick and tired of Amateur Hour at the White House.

He hasn't even gotten most of his appointments done. 100 days and most of his departments still have empty desks.

W. had a ship-shape White House. You might not like to admit that, but he did compared to Chairman O.

It would be worse if Rahm Emmanuel wasn't around, too. You Obama Kool-Aide drinkers can at least be glad for him.

"You do know McCain was the candidate right?"

Yes, I did. What I am not sure is that you did, with your obsession with Palin and Bristol. You do know that Palin was just a running mate, right? You did know that Bristol was just some teenager in Alaska, right?

Pity yourself and rationalize that instead.

what a fool
The strategy of revving up ones base while giving the absolute minimum to the non-base -- just enough to peel off enough -- was a strategy deployed by Karl Rove in 2004.

Obama's campaign nerd, Axelrod admits to using Rove's strategy in 2008.

McCain did the exact opposite. By the time he realized (somewhat) the damage he hurredly tried to mend fences with the base by picking Palin. Too late.

Look were 'going after the moderates' got him.

" His approval has dropped a precipitous 3 points since week "

His negatives have skyrocketed over the past three months. And approval ratings for his most of his policies are below 50% now.

Your ability to just spout BS is what I am counting. Carry on.

All or nothing
"You are opposed to federal regulators? Since when?"

That's so like you. Either I have to believe that everything must be tightly controlled, and that we live in conditions of absolute tyranny.. or I must believe in total freedom, where there can be no protection of law without a taking. There is no in between.

I've said this before. You think the way Russians dance. There's no nuance to you.

I like living in a world where there is a minimum of restrictive laws.. but there's just enough of them to get the job done. Because without the law, we have to take matters into our own hands. And history proves to us that justice does not lie in that direction.

It's all a matter of trade offs. You give some of your freedom to provide protection.

But the government continously fails...
and people like you support MORE restrictive laws when the incompetent government failed to enforce the previous laws.

Prove it
I don't know why those guys were there in Philly. Maybe the journalists should have asked them that instead of just gawking and trying to manufacture drama out of it. The episode certainly isn't enough to draw a connection between B. Hussein Obama and the Black Panthers, nor is it enough to declare there were Obama thugs manning polling places across the country. Thats what Superheater was whining about, again of course, it appears the manic fear mongering of conservatives causes anxiety in their lemmings.


"He hasn't even gotten most of his appointments done. 100 days and most of his departments still have empty desks."

Bush finished his appointments in June after taking office. So, come June 18 we can have this discussion again and see which Prez runs a tighter ship. You're just talking out of your rose colored bunghole on this one. Is this indicative of most of your arguments? You should like Obama, hope is the only basis for your views.

I'm happy to admit when Bush did something good. Sadly, it was a very, very rare occasion.


"Yes, I did (know McCain was the candidate). What I am not sure is that you did, with your obsession with Palin and Bristol. You do know that Palin was just a running mate, right? You did know that Bristol was just some teenager in Alaska, right?"
"Pity yourself and rationalize that instead."

What, you can't think of your own words, you have to copy mine and try to throw them back at me? Silly Z, tricks are for kids.

I'm flattered. I'll be sure to let you know when I get my conservative talk radio show going. It'll be full of top notch red meat for you clowns. Easy money.

Thats interesting too. I typed a whole paragraph about how I agree with you to an extent and elaborated on the value of executive experience, but its the facetious question at the end you responded to. Thats what makes you a clown.

attack of the lemming
"The strategy of revving up ones base while giving the absolute minimum to the non-base -- just enough to peel off enough -- was a strategy deployed by Karl Rove in 2004."

But Bush won in 2004 because he successfully leveraged fear of terrorists and the people were wary to switch generals in the middle of a war, and Kerry did an absolutely horrible job of campaigning. Like every election, the base didn't win it, the moderates determine the winner. So maybe that was their strategy as you say, doesn't matter, they won despite it.

"Obama's campaign nerd, Axelrod admits to using Rove's strategy in 2008."

Prove it. I can't find it. Doesn't seem right considering the overwhelming grassroots campaign they ran using the internet. Karl certainly didn't do anything on that order.

"McCain did the exact opposite. By the time he realized (somewhat) the damage he hurredly tried to mend fences with the base by picking Palin. Too late."

You're flat wrong on this point too. McCain lost because he dropped to his knees and kissed away his soul to the conservative right. He used to be a moderate, a RINO as I heard over and over again when I use to defend him against your ilk. Remember, Maverick? He lost that title when he kowtowed to the right, which is why it didn't resonate when he tried to use it in the campaign. McCain didn't try to go after the moderates, he abandoned the moderates. Man, you need to go back and study the history you moron. Take a look at how his positions changed from 2000 to 2007. Are you saying you used to like McCain and that changed leading up to the election?

I am a case in point to this. If McCain had stayed true to his Maverick persona I would have had a hard time deciding who to vote for in 08. Instead, he veered hard right to placate the base, he had to to get the nomination, so I understand it, but he lost me in the process. Lost me with extreme prejudice, I'd rather spit in his face than shake his hand now. And poor McCain, his hard right veer only got him so far with you whackos, you still had a bad taste in your mouth for him. Ah, but that horny milf Palin, her shallow words hooked and reeled you in record time.


"His negatives have skyrocketed over the past three months. And approval ratings for his most of his policies are below 50% now."

Skyrocketing negatives? It was a whopping 26% in the Newsweek poll from a month ago that you clowns choose to cite.
Its the same poll you get the idea he rates under 50% on some economic measures, but, a more recent Pew poll puts his ratings above 50% on the same subjects.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-obama-polls0423,0,6965513.story

The problem here is that you believe everything Human Events tells you. You're just a dog eating out of their bowl, but because its the only bowl you eat out of you don't realize they're actually feeding you shiit. You're a good lemming, don't let anyone tell you different.

Your words: "Prove it." Where were the whackos?

Look in the mirror, to start with
They were the ones with signs equating Obama to Hitler and crying about dicators and communism and showing their ignorance about where Hussein Obama was born, people who want zero taxes, and on and on and on. People like yourself who want the government to force their values on everyone and are ideological to the point of ignorance in their understanding.

Not everyone at these gatherings was a whacko. Like I said, I love the premise. The problem is that in reality it was a Republican event geared toward the whackos and cheerleaders that conceive their politics the same as they conceive their religion. I find it really disappointing, it taints the honorable premise. So like i also said, more tea parties could go one of two ways, they could actually truly turn grassroots and become meaningful, or they could further illustrate the severity of the joke conservatism has become.

BHO is socialist, like Hilter
Why does BHOs aunt say he was born in Kenya?

You still provide no proof, but there is proof that the 'liberals' ARE forcing their 'values' like abortion, homosexual marriage, AGW, socialism and racism on us.

I have heard directly from participants and organizers who are independents and democrats.

I hope you and the other BHO socialists keep on ridiculing so many fellow citizens who want the politicians to support and defend the Constitution. It will encourage more to see who you all really are.

Look at that!
Zyndryl is wrong again. Not that surprising, but you'll have to twist like a Belgium pretzel to rationalize this example of your stupidity. Besides the fact its obvious you had no idea what you were talking about with this comment:

"He hasn't even gotten most of his appointments done. 100 days and most of his departments still have empty desks."

Apparently he did, because at 100 days he swore in his final appointment. And only a month and a half ahead of when your hero W had his Cabinet filled.

You have so much adulation for Bush for this feat, will you give the same respect to Obama? Ha! I know you're incapable, I'm just rubbing it in. So much for your hope that its Amateur Hour at the White House. It must be hope, because you had no actual knowledge when making your statements. Business as usual for the delusional world of Z's ideology. Why should anyone believe anything you say when you exhibit such poor awareness of reality and common sense?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/obamas-cabinet-is-now-complete/?hp

Your subject is patently false
Hitler's Germany was an aristocratic capitalism, it wasn't socialist. Industrial production was privately owned, not state owned. Hitler threw the socialists out when he took power.

Really marjon, do some homework before you say idiotic things. It behooves you to not accept right wing propaganda at face value.


"You still provide no proof, but there is proof that the 'liberals' ARE forcing their 'values' like abortion, homosexual marriage, AGW, socialism and racism on us."

Abortion is legal. No one is forcing you to have an abortion.
Homosexual marriage is a civil right.
Global warming is real.
Socialism - you have a point on this one, the state has taken over a large share of corporations. The debate on this subject resides in whether one thinks the takeover was a necessary evil to save our economy, or not.
Racism? I don't get it, what do you mean by that?


"I have heard directly from participants and organizers who are independents and democrats."

Yeah right. They were an extreme minority, but I don't doubt there were a few participating.


"I hope you and the other BHO socialists keep on ridiculing so many fellow citizens who want the politicians to support and defend the Constitution. It will encourage more to see who you all really are."

No you don't. You're scared.

I also want politicians to support and enforce the Constitution, but carrying a sign with Obama's face juxtaposed on Hitler's body has nothing to do with that.

If liberals did not exist it would be necessary for you to create them. Oh wait, you already do!

The 'owners' did what Hilter ordered, just as GM and Chrysler are doing with BHO.
Fascism IS socialism.

"Racism? I don't get it, what do you mean by that?"

"Words spoken by U.S. Atty. General Eric Holder this week at a Black History program have rekindled a widespread debate on America's rocky history of race relations. Holder said that the U.S. is, in many ways, "a nation of cowards" when it comes to addressing and resolving prevalent tensions."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100911027

"Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”"

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/22/ricci-v-destafano/

Who are the racists?

And fellow traveler Garafalo claims the tea parties are based on race.

"Homosexual marriage is a civil right."

Not in many states and only by judicial fiat, except in VT, which has no gun control laws.

"Global warming is real."

What is the cause and why has it stopped?

"I also want politicians to support and enforce the Constitution"

Then how can you support BHO who is usurping more power than authorized by the Constitution?

"nationalization of trusts and socialization of industry"
""Hitler's political platform on November 1, 1930....nationalization of trusts and socialization of industry.....p.6"

Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in American magazines, 1923-1939
By Michael Zalampas

Instead of vilifying Jews, BHO is attacking conservatives.
And what is particularly appalling is presuming US veterans will plan attacks against the USA.

Channeling Hilter
Bob-- Don't you agree it's hard trying to conduct a reasonable discourse with a guy who thinks Obama is just like "Hilter"? Reason is obviously inappropriate in this venue.

Did you watch Obama's press conference last night? He had an interesting comment on all the people saying he wants to make government larger. He said that running two wars, a failed economy, a broken health care system and thinking about a global pandemic wasn't enough, he wanted to also run the banks and the auto industry? Frankly he'd have been happy with a leaner portfolio. But the choice wasn't his.. he was playing the hand he'd been dealt.

No matter, though. The guy's just like Hilter.

Excuses
Leaders don't blame others for what on their plate. Especially since he BEGGED the American people for the job. He had a choice, he could have stopped running for president when the economy tanked before the election.

The fix for the 'failed' economy is NOT more government control as many people would advise, IF he listened to them. But, this is his excuse to continue policies that have failed for a century to acquire more power.

Most normal people don't want such power. Why does BHO?

If it makes you feel better I can compare BHO to other socialists like Stalin or Mao or Gorby or ....They are all the same to me.

Why do like coming onto TCS to just plain LIE?
I mean, what's in it for you?

Your BS:

"Apparently he did, because at 100 days he swore in his final appointment."

The truth:

"All told, Obama has about 500 appointments to make that are subject to Senate confirmation, and about 3,000 positions to fill overall"

From: http://cbs4denver.com/national/obama.administration.open.2.982911.html

Of course, you'll follow your usual pattern now. In this case, that means: Claim you were referring to just Cabinet appointments even though you didn't specify that was the case.

Your eFraud is so predictable now.

At least facts back me up
" Like every election, the base didn't win it, the moderates determine the winner. So maybe that was their strategy as you say, doesn't matter, they won despite it."

Apparently, you either didn't read what I said about the strategy or you did but are incapable of understanding what it is. Based upon the above, I am inclined to think the latter.

Bush won because all kinds of christian conservative voters came out of the woodwork on election day. The moderates didn't deliver squat FOR Bush. Moderate voter turnout for that election was rather weak, too. Why was moderate (non-base) voter turnout weak and social conservatives (base) hot? Because Bush had the base riled up but Kerry couldn't attract those moderates turned off by it. So the Jesus Freaks (as you would call them) got off their butts and the Wushy-Mushy Moderates stayed home.

For 2008, it was a bit different in that why should a Moderate vote for McCain when they could have Obama instead? Dems do favor Moderates more than Reps do, after all. Which only proves the case of the Rove Strategy -- McCain couldn't afford to have ANY conservative base supporters stay home. But, apparently he didn't realize that until it was too late.

"The problem here is that you believe everything Human Events tells you"

I don't read Human Events. But at least I do read, Mr Filibuster.

"Skyrocketing negatives? It was a whopping 26% in the Newsweek poll from a month.."

Newsweek is a bought and paid propaganda ***** for Obama, dude.

Let's look at a company called 'Gallup'...and let us keep in mind what the definition of 'skyrocketing' is, shall we?

For reference, here is the context I used 'skyrocketing':

"His negatives have skyrocketed over the past three months."

According to Gallup, Obama's negatives went from 12% at the end of January to 24% in February. That's a increase of 100%. Or, it DOUBLED in just one month.

BTW, after the first month of Bush's first term, his disapproval was 21% -- lower than Obama's DESPITE THE BAD BLOOD FROM THE FLORIDA FIASCO.

In March, Gallup had his disapprovals at 27%. Gallup now has Obama's disapprovals at 31%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Compared to 12% in January, that's almost a 300% or THREE TIMES increase over three months. 258%, to be more exact.

Yes, I am sorry to shock you Bob, but such a rate of increase over that span of time is SKYROCKETING by any normal person's measure. Of course, we all know you aren't 'normal' due to the addictive affects of the Obama Kool-Aide you guzzle down every five minutes, it seems.

Also, guess what groups he's losing the support of the most? The few Republicans that voted for him, naturally. And independents..IN DROVES.

Weren't you the one claiming Obama needs those 'moderates' to win? That 'moderates' decide elections?

If so, why is he PISSING ALL OVER THEM then?

They're all the same to you
For once, you've said something I agree with. Whether we're talking about Obama, Stalin, "Hilter" or even "Gorby".. to you they're all the same.

This kind of thing denotes a monumental and wilful ignorance of the way the real world operates. It's not just a matter of there being two clubs, and you have to either belong to one of them or the other.

We're all different. I know you'd never actually listen to anything Obama said. You know all you want to know about him just by looking at him.

Two clubs, liberty or tyranny. Which do you want to belong to?
Most people like the tyranny club because it makes them feel powerful and important.

That is the way most of the world operates.


I don't care what BHO looks like. I care about what he says (or doesn't say, which is much) and what he tries to do.

We have a former democratic MA speaker of the house as a morning host in Boston. He is an expert at political BS and even he agrees that BHO constantly evades any direct answers.

You dance pretty good for a clown
Indeed, I was referring to the Cabinet appointments in my comments. And I'm still correct, Obama completed his Cabinet within 100 days whereas Bush completed his in June. Remember, this comment from you is what started us on this path:

"He hasn't even gotten most of his appointments done. 100 days and most of his departments still have empty desks."

"W. had a ship-shape White House. You might not like to admit that, but he did compared to Chairman O."

It would seem Obama runs a tighter ship than W., according to your comparison. The fact is contrary to your assertion regarding Cabinet appointments. That makes you wrong Zyndryl.

We can talk about the full depth of appointments the President needs to make too, now that you clarified your subject. Here are some choice quotes from the article you linked (which is a pretty good article, btw. Kudos to you Z):
"After a spurt of recent activity that followed a problem-plagued start, Obama is outpacing George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on appointments. But Obama, like his two immediate predecessors, is bogged down in a system that has grown increasingly cumbersome over the years. And he's added tougher-than-ever background checks and ethics rules."

So, you're wrong on this count too. Obama is outpacing W. And did you see the last sentence there? Obama is outpacing W. in addition to raising the standards of the people he appoints! But lets be honest, ethics aren't something W ever concerned himself with.

""Obama will be faster than Clinton and Bush when all is said and done, but it's still a slow process," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert on the federal government."

So the expert confirms it, I am right and you are wrong Zyndryl. Compared to Chairman O, W.'s ship was not as tight.

I just wonder, did you read that article before you offered the link to it? Oh, I know, you just forgot what we were talking about in your zest to avoid being wrong. Honest mistake. But you know, there is nothing wrong with being wrong once in a while. It helps one grow. Wouldn't you know, thats a big reason conservatives/Republicans continue moving to irrelevancy. I've been telling you for months, maybe years. You notice how the media is finally starting to discuss it a little bit since Specter switched teams? I love it, conservatives' response is right in line with why they're driving themselves down the toilet.

We cannot change unless we survive but we cannot survive unless we change.

What kind of clown ideology is opposed to that? Modern conservatism.

You got decent points
His disapproval doubled according to Gallup daily tracking polls. Thats one polling firm, among many, so keep that in mind. Gallup assigns the change to conservative Republicans who were undecided early and grew unhappy quickly. Eh. They don't matter that much anyway. I still wouldn't call it skyrocketing, its still only 29%, nowhere near the sky. But you're entitled to define it how you want. Approval is still at 65%, thats more meaningful than just looking at what conservative Republicans think. He's not losing independents, not according to Gallup.

I don't see anything on there about approval rating on specific topics, so where did you get that information? I came across an article on Human Events that cherrypicked data to make their case, they used the same verbiage and numbers as you so I assumed thats where you got the information.


"BTW, after the first month of Bush's first term, his disapproval was 21% -- lower than Obama's DESPITE THE BAD BLOOD FROM THE FLORIDA FIASCO."

Yes, remember that next time you want to whine about how Bush was hated and treated unfairly from the very beginning.


"Which only proves the case of the Rove Strategy -- McCain couldn't afford to have ANY conservative base supporters stay home. But, apparently he didn't realize that until it was too late."

What more could McCain have done? He hustled for the base way back in the primary campaign. Its how he earned the nomination. Selecting Palin helped fire up the wingnuts, but what more could he have done? Only going back in time and changing his history would've made a difference.

He used to be a moderate. As I said, I used to defend him against conservatives. Conservatives just couldn't rinse that dirty taste out of their mouth from the old days of "maverick" McCain. Not even crazy Palin was enough. She brought the base onboard, but not excited enough to close the gap, and she alienated everyone with a brain, so...

providing protection?
Your excuse for tyranny is that we give up freedom for protection. But this doesn't explain why we can't walk around DC and many other places, especially at nite, and survive. I've just heard that there are about 30 law enforcement agencies in the DC area. If 30 are not enough, do you propose 31, or how many?

The states sells us a bill of goods saying we must give up freedom for safety, and took it hook line and sinker.

It's the government itself that is the biggest danger to us. In the 29th century, how many people have governments killed, and how many by mafias and other gangs?

Show when I INITIATED personal attacks. I asked questions; and YOU resorted to ad hominem attacks
because you have now answers to the contradictions in your positions. The same applies here in this exchange.

The most of famous of Jesus’ sayings that even non-Christians are likely to know is the one about showing the other cheek.

How does that help “free markets” and prevent the “use of force”? If his kingdom is NOT of this earth, why drag Him into these EARTHLY discussions?

These are the questions you can’t answer and resort to ad hominem attacks on my mother and me to EVADE.

Show when I INITIATED personal attacks. I asked questions; and YOU resorted to ad hominem attacks
because you have no answers to the contradictions in your positions. The same applies here in this exchange.

The most famous of Jesus’ sayings that even non-Christians are likely to know is the one about showing the other cheek.

How does that help “free markets” and prevent the “use of force”? If his kingdom is NOT of this earth, why drag Him into these EARTHLY discussions?

These are the questions you can’t answer and resort to ad hominem attacks on my mother and me to EVADE.

TCS Daily Archives