tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post791849833886758901..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-52267009456935410062007-08-05T08:17:00.000-04:002007-08-05T08:17:00.000-04:00Uhhh....so...at first your story was that Obama wa...Uhhh....so...at first your story was that Obama was proposing something new, but new wasn't enough, b/c new isn't necessarily right. Now Obama is proposing something right (because Bush-like), but not new.<BR/><BR/>So if he's not proposing anything different than the wise and glorious George W. Bush has been doing, why the crankiness?<BR/><BR/>Oh, I forgot...because Clinton will eat him up. Your Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-37254938284545556542007-08-05T03:45:00.000-04:002007-08-05T03:45:00.000-04:00Democratic. Sorry.If you can purge this blog of t...Democratic. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>If you can purge this blog of the other couple dozen pejoratives that are used with great frequency for the folks on the other side of the aisle, I'll be in your debt.<BR/><BR/>Bush has talked to the Norks, Persians and Syrians, just not on the summit level, WS, and feelers are out all the time at even lower levels. Read the news and stop crabbing. There are no Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-36054312398079726402007-08-05T00:48:00.000-04:002007-08-05T00:48:00.000-04:00One question I forgot to ask you Tom:Why do you re...One question I forgot to ask you Tom:<BR/><BR/>Why do you refer to the "Democrat" nominee as opposed to the Democratic nominee? The latter is the way it has been referred to my whole life, just like we've always referred to the Democratic leadership, not the Democrat leadership.<BR/><BR/>I know some Republicans do this because they don't want to allow the Democrats to imply with their name that Joe the Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11309208261956958264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-13086056319815633982007-08-05T00:28:00.000-04:002007-08-05T00:28:00.000-04:00I don't know if you read the full memo that S. Pow...I don't know if you read the full memo that S. Power put out, Tom...did you? To my mind, that is the only possible reason why you didn't find an argument. If you did read it....Well, I don't know what to say to you. Ok, I will do it. I hate to have to do this b/c it's somewhat tedious and I don't know if you'll even read this. But, what the hell, I'm bored:<BR/><BR/>She backs up her support of Joe the Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11309208261956958264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-64609916759810828942007-08-04T22:30:00.000-04:002007-08-04T22:30:00.000-04:00I did, and reported back. I spent more time on you...I did, and reported back. I spent more time on your post than you did. Why the abuse?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-61077366413845422712007-08-04T16:07:00.000-04:002007-08-04T16:07:00.000-04:00Jeez, I must really be getting cranky, but it seem...Jeez, I must really be getting cranky, but it seems to me like you just repeat the same misreading again in your second comment.<BR/><BR/>Am I missing something?<BR/><BR/>Also: isn't this Power piece just a sort of short, rhetorical response to a debating point? Shouldn't one look elsewhere for a more well-worked out version of the ideas?Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-30635148104988896482007-08-04T15:37:00.000-04:002007-08-04T15:37:00.000-04:00My comprehension's fine, thank you, WS. I assure y...My comprehension's fine, thank you, WS. I assure you that I read you more carefully than you reciprocate. There is nothing being advanced here except <I>x</I> sucks, therefore <I>y</I> is worth a try.<BR/><BR/>Eh. "Anything's better than this" is not the strongest method of argument, and shows a lack of imagination.<BR/><BR/>Ms. Power's story is interesting. According to Sy Hirsh (who always Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-43544735124126859602007-08-04T14:41:00.000-04:002007-08-04T14:41:00.000-04:00Maybe check your reading comprehension skills, the...Maybe check your reading comprehension skills, then.<BR/><BR/>A rough reconstruction of the argument:<BR/><BR/>1. Bush's strategy has been an abject failure.<BR/><BR/>2. Obama's strategy represents the most reasonable and obvious alternative to Bush's strategy.<BR/><BR/>Therefore<BR/><BR/>3. Obama's is worth a shot.<BR/><BR/>I guess I just don't see how it's tough to understand "Not talking Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-81754548789067864032007-08-04T14:27:00.000-04:002007-08-04T14:27:00.000-04:00I detect no argument being advanced here, only a p...I detect no argument being advanced here, only a pronouncement of the goodness and rightness of Obama's position. It sure sounds nice---"new" thinking is always better than the old.<BR/><BR/>That Samantha Power worked as a foreign policy advisor for Barack Obama in 2005-06 presents some epistemological complications for her assertions here, or should.<BR/><BR/>But I'll leave it to Team Clinton44Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com