« Amendment 10A | Main | "this is now your oil spill. It's on your watch" »

"The power is not pure enough, it is not invincible enough..."

The Anchoress on leftist desires for an Obama dictatorship:

When I read last week that Woody Allen likes the idea of letting President Obama be a dictator for a "few years" I was repelled; but then I've found Allen to be a repellent individual for decades-since Manhattan, at least-so I just shrugged it off as the foghorn bleat of an over-privileged mediocrity looking for some attention.

But then the equally mediocre Tom born-wealthy-high-carbon-footprint-lover-of-Chinese-Communist-Capitalism-I've-got-mine-you-should-not-have-yours Friedman let fly with this on Meet the Press:

I have fantasized-don't get me wrong-but that what if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment. I don't want to be China for a second, OK, I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.

To which Andrea even-more-privileged-than-you-Tom Mitchell chimed in:

"And, in fact, Tom, you're absolutely right . . ."

The leftist party that these people support is currently in control of both houses of congress and the White House (and they are well-represented within the federal judiciary) and yet, it is not enough. The power is not pure enough, it is not invincible enough; their power is diluted because, dammit, those little people crowing about the constitution all over the internets are mucking things up!

You've got to read it all, if only to savor sentences like the following:

Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the world.

It is the ultimate fantasy of the narcissist. And we've got whole generations of them, in control of our media and our government, all intent on "remaking America."

No one rants as righteously as The Anchoress. No one. 

And it's righteous because it's true, to the chagrin of every narcissist faux-intellectual out there. 

And you know who you are.

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39164.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The power is not pure enough, it is not invincible enough...":

Comments (49)

I wonder what the MSM would... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I wonder what the MSM would have reported if say Karl Rove had said this same thing in 2003.

"Every murderous totalitari... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the world."

I think what happens to faux-intellectuals once the dictator is firmly entrenched in power is they either become his political/ideological slaves or "disappear". It's kind of what a dictator does to show his gratitude for their help on his way to the top.

rm - exactly.In fa... (Below threshold)

rm - exactly.

In fact I'd challenge our liberal trolls to find a single example of a top Republican opinion writer or talker - George Will, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. - going on a major broadcast news venue like MTP and expressing a desire to have George W. Bush be "dictator for a day" -- with the moderator supporting them.

That's a fundamental difference between traditional conservatism and liberal elitism -- respect for democracy, vs. loathing of the unwashed masses.

Sestak bribe an impeachable... (Below threshold)
epador:

Sestak bribe an impeachable offense?

National Guard mobilizations in 5 States?

Hmmm...

I have said for over a year... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I have said for over a year that the dems wanted to overturn the rule of law and create a dictatorship. Now we have the media and their supporters publicly calling for it.

Does it seem that far fetched that elections might get canceled on some pretense? Just remember their core (and only) principle: "Never let a crisis go to waste". One significant terrorist attack is all it would take for the administration to declare that it is too unsettled and dangerous for people to go to the polls, it's too dangerous for the government to endure the turmoil of offices changing hands.

A few thoughts....... (Below threshold)
Hank:

A few thoughts....

I recall that during the Bush years, the left would talk about W suspending elections and becoming a dictator. I couldn't understand where this came from, until now. They thought Bush would do it because they would do it if they could. Yet more projection from the left.

The disdain the left has for the average american is really quite impressive. Where do they learn to hate their fellow citizens with such fervor?

As for Woody Allen, who cares what that pathetic pedophile thinks? Why he isn't shunned remains a mystery to me.

"I think what happens to fa... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"I think what happens to faux-intellectuals once the dictator is firmly entrenched in power is they either become his political/ideological slaves or "disappear". It's kind of what a dictator does to show his gratitude for their help on his way to the top."

This is exactly what is already happening with Barry. When his sycophants become troublesome he throws them under the bus. They become non-persons to the regime. Barry is already a dictator in all his behavior. He just has to eliminate elections to seal the deal.

"I recall that during th... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"I recall that during the Bush years, the left would talk about W suspending elections and becoming a dictator. I couldn't understand where this came from, until now. They thought Bush would do it because they would do it if they could."

Bingo!

Woody Allen - "of the intel... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Woody Allen - "of the intellectual elite". Much better ring than, Woody Allen, PEDOPHILE.

RE: "I recall that durin... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "I recall that during the Bush years, the left would talk about W suspending elections and becoming a dictator. I couldn't understand where this came from, until now. They thought Bush would do it because they would do it if they could."

From Wikipedia:

Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.

And these people call themselves "Liberals"!?

You will note that NONE of ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

You will note that NONE of these "intellectual elites" actually LIVE in places like Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc. Odd.

In fact I'd challe... (Below threshold)
In fact I'd challenge our liberal trolls to find a single example of a top Republican opinion writer or talker - George Will, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. - going on a major broadcast news venue like MTP and expressing a desire to have George W. Bush be "dictator for a day" -- with the moderator supporting them.

I'll tell you what, I'll go one step further. How about George W. Bush *himself* daydreaming about being a dictator?

And this is not merely a misspeech - he said this **three different times***.

http://www.trueamericanpatriots.com/bushquotes.html

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - Governing Magazine, July, 1998

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I'm the dictator." - Washington D.C. December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - Business Week, July 30, 2001

And is there *a single one* of the pundits you mentioned, who criticized Bush for saying this?

I just googled, and couldn't find a single one.

"Every murderous t... (Below threshold)
"Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the world."

I think that oversimplifies what happened in Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia and China - those dictatorships really appear to have started with economic collapse. From that point it seems to have been about who could move into an existing vaccuum (Russia, Italy), defeat the anointed pawn of foreign interests (China, Cuba) and/or fool the masses into believing they would look out for them the best (Germany, Cuba).

But let's say for a second it did really start with intellectuals.

The above paragraph I quoted applies perfectly to the Republican party's Neocons as well.

I recall that duri... (Below threshold)
I recall that during the Bush years, the left would talk about W suspending elections and becoming a dictator. I couldn't understand where this came from, until now. They thought Bush would do it because they would do it if they could

I'd like to suggest an alternate theory: that you could understand it because you didn't mind as much what Bush was doing.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, not being in power is supposed to taste like a $#|+ sandwich; so it's important not to confuse tyranny with losing.

Above should read: "that yo... (Below threshold)

Above should read: "that you couldn't understand it because you didn't mind as much what Bush was doing."

As always, preview is my friend.

jim x - so you're saying th... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

jim x - so you're saying that the left WAS saying Bush would 'suspend elections'?

And yet, he didn't.

Which brings us back to "projection". Again.

Is that like the left's argument, "People should not have guns!" Why? "Because if I had a gun and GrandFan was making me look like an ass, I'd shoot the SOB!" (Projection)

My reply would be: So since you can't control YOUR temper, I can't own a gun?

Political power that will b... (Below threshold)

Political power that will be handed over in a few years, probably to someone who would like to see you imprisoned for how you used it, isn't exactly the same thing as a gun owned by a private citizen.

so you're saying that th... (Below threshold)

so you're saying that the left WAS saying Bush would 'suspend elections'?

The "Left" (which usually means everyone not a conservative or an independent) was not. However, it's undeniable that some liberals publicly wondered if Bush, Cheney & co. would do that.

Which brings us back to "projection". Again.

Are *you* saying that if liberals say this about Bush, it must be from projection - but if conservatives say this about Obama, it's not all about projection?

That's a rather convenient argument, don't you think?

Is that like the left's ... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Is that like the left's argument, "People should not have guns!"

Let's talk about this concept of "The Left" some more.

Would you consider Howard Dean a Leftist? I'd guess so. In which case you might be surprised to know that he received an A rating from the NRA.

And I'm certain you would consider Obama a Leftist. Which would have made it impossible for him to sign a law allowing civilians to have guns in Federal parks.

Nevertheless he did sign this law.

Why? "Because if I had a gun and GrandFan was making me look like an ass, I'd shoot the SOB!" (Projection)

My reply would be: So since you can't control YOUR temper, I can't own a gun?

My reply to you is, that's a strange example for your argument. It actually makes it sound like you're doing the projection, and want to shoot others for making you, GarandFan, look like an ass.

And also that in your *own* subconscious opinion, you can't control your temper and thus shouldn't own a gun.

"so you're saying that the ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"so you're saying that the left WAS saying Bush would 'suspend elections'?
The "Left" (which usually means everyone not a conservative or an independent) was not."


They weren't? You on a bender back then?


"People should not have guns!" Why? "Because if I had a gun and GrandFan was making me look like an ass, I'd shoot the SOB!" (Projection)
My reply would be: So since you can't control YOUR temper, I can't own a gun? My reply to you is, that's a strange example for your argument."


You left off the first part of the premise.
"Is that like the left's argument, "People should not have guns!"

GarandFan, are you on a ben... (Below threshold)
jim x:

GarandFan, are you on a bender? You seem to have completely skipped over my answer:

The "Left" (which usually means everyone not a conservative or an independent) was not. However, it's undeniable that some liberals publicly wondered if Bush, Cheney & co. would do that.

Please read the above. Thank you.

You left off the first part of the premise.

OK, let's add it in.

Is that like the left's argument, "People should not have guns!" Why? "Because if I had a gun and GrandFan was making me look like an ass, I'd shoot the SOB!" (Projection)

My reply would be: So since you can't control YOUR temper, I can't own a gun?

How does adding that in, prove me wrong in that your "example" of projection could actually show more projection on your part, than on "the Left"?

jim x:RE: Quotes b... (Below threshold)
kevino:

jim x:

RE: Quotes by President Bush:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."

- Governing Magazine, July, 1998

Note that Bush didn't actually advocate a dictatorship: he simply pointed out that if one were a dictator, then it is easier than being President. It's a statement between the differences in the political systems. It doesn't state that a dictatorship is preferred.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I'm the dictator."

- Washington D.C. December 18, 2000

Same idea: a dictatorship is easier for the individual who is governing, but it includes a wry comment about whose direction is being followed, acknowledging the fact that those with different points of view are not considered. (It's no fun not being dictator.)

--------

If you could find a quote where Bush stated something like, "I have fantasized . . . what if we could just be China for a day," or "It would be good if I could be dictator for a few years because I could do a lot of good things quickly," then you would have a point. But your examples fall well short of the idiot statements these Obama apologists have made. Bush didn't advocate changing our system, even temporarily.

Keep digging.

Psychological projection or... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Psychological projection or projection bias is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the government, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those same feelings.

got #23 down yet jim x?... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

got #23 down yet jim x?

Query of Google regarding Bush and cancellation of 2008 elections yields 49,8000,000 hits. You should have visited DK and DU at the time, it was all the rage.

Now this part I'll type slowly, so you can follow:

a) No one should have guns!
b) Why not?
a) Because people cannot control their emotions!
b) Huh?
a) If I owned a gun, and I got really mad, I'd shoot someone!
b) So?
a) If I would shoot someone when I'm really mad, you would shoot someone when you were really mad. P R O J E C T I O N
b) But I'm not you.
a) Doesn't matter.

Follow?

Note that Bush didn't ac... (Below threshold)

Note that Bush didn't actually advocate a dictatorship: he simply pointed out that if one were a dictator, then it is easier than being President.

Sure. Also notice also that *Friedman* wasn't advocating a dictatorship - he was simply pointing out if you have a dictatorship, it is easier for leaders to get some things done.

Basically, the exact same point that Bush was making.

Psychological proj... (Below threshold)
Psychological projection or projection bias is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the government, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those same feelings.

Exactly. Which is why your stated example of projection is a poor argument - as I stated in # 19.

This is because, as I attempted to state but perhaps wasn't clear - this example could easily be interpreted to show projection on YOUR part. You, GarandFan.

This is because your example's assumptions about what the Left whats - that they want to shoot people like you who disagree with them - could easily be YOUR unconscious projection about what YOU want to do to THEM:

Shoot them for disagreeing with you.

Do you see what I'm saying about your example now?

"Do you see what I'm saying... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Do you see what I'm saying about your example now?"

My humble apology for not making it clear.

Is it clear now?

I'll type this quickly but ... (Below threshold)

I'll type this quickly but patronizingly, to match your tone:

"a) No one should have guns!"

Which is not a point that has EVER been made by Howard Dean, Barack Obama, or any other of a number of high-ranking Democrats which conservatives clearly think of as "The Left".

So if your assumption can't be applied to at least a majority of the group you're accusing, then your assumption fails.

That also means your argument fails in it's first sentence.

Do you understand why, or do I need to point out to you again that they and others have not ever tried to outlaw guns?

Here, I'll break it down a ... (Below threshold)

Here, I'll break it down a little further just for you.

a) The liberals want to take away all of our guns forever! b) Why? a) Because they say people cannot control their emotions! b) Who says that? a) I think this means they want to shoot me! b) Why? Who? a) Because that's the only reason they all want to take away all of our guns forever! b) But you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that "The Liberals" - which you also haven't defined - want to take away your guns. a) But I still think they want to do it, because I think they think something like "I would shoot someone when I'm really mad, you would shoot someone when you were really mad." b) well, YOU thinking that is a textbook example of projection on YOUR PART - especially as you have no evidence AND you aren't even clear on who "they" might be. P R O J E C T I O N a) But I'm not you. b) Doesn't matter.

Do you follow?

Or do you instead think it isn't possible for you to be projecting - that's apparently only something liberals can be successfully accused of?

Better formatted example be... (Below threshold)

Better formatted example below, for extra clarity.

a) The liberals want to take away all of our guns forever!
b) Why?
a) Because they say people cannot control their emotions!
b) Who says that?
a) I think this means they want to shoot me! b) Why? Who?
a) Because that's the only reason they all want to take away all of our guns forever!
b) But you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that "The Liberals" - which you also haven't defined - want to take away your guns.
a) But I still think they want to do it, because I think they think something like "I would shoot someone when I'm really mad, so you would shoot someone when you were really mad."
b) well, YOU thinking that could be a textbook example of projection on YOUR PART - especially as you have no evidence AND you aren't even clear on who "they" might be.
P R O J E C T I O N
a) But I'm not you.
b) Doesn't matter.

Do you understand what I'm saying now, about this being a terrible example?

'll type this quickly but p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

'll type this quickly but patronizingly, to match your tone:

"a) No one should have guns!"

Which is not a point that has EVER been made by Howard Dean, Barack Obama, or any other of a number of high-ranking Democrats which conservatives clearly think of as "The Left".

I'll skip the tone, matter of fact, I'll skip most of the rest simply on the assertion that Barack Obama, "or any other of a number of high-ranking Democrats" is not anti-gun.

OK, GarandFan. Please expla... (Below threshold)

OK, GarandFan. Please explain to me how Barack Obama is anti-gun, when he signed into law a bill that would allow people to bring guns into Federal public parks.

Obama signed the measure wi... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Obama signed the measure without comment as part of a credit card reform package. Get it? He signed because the law he WANTED had that amendment added to it.

It was NOT a separate piece of legislation. You did know that, didn't you?

During the presidential campaign, Obama expressed support for the District of Columbia gun ban. But after the SCOTUS decision, he decided he supported that instead. Gotta love his 'consistency'.

Obama voted against the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito (two of the five who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller, and told the audience at the Saddleback Forum last August he would not have appointed Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.

On Obama's Transition website, Change.gov, the President-elect announced his Urban Policy Agenda. In describing his plans to "address gun violence in cities", the website announced that "Obama and Biden... support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Now let's move to: "or any other of a number of high-ranking Democrats"

Let me name just three, close to home:
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Boxer
Dianne Feinstein

Say good night jim x.

Obama signed the measure... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Obama signed the measure without comment as part of a credit card reform package. Get it? He signed because the law he WANTED had that amendment added to it.

Sure. Which means that he wasn't against guns enough, to veto the bill and send it back to congress. Next?

During the presidential campaign, Obama expressed support for the District of Columbia gun ban. But after the SCOTUS decision, he decided he supported that instead. Gotta love his 'consistency'.

If what you're saying is that he flip-flopped, that also means he isn't for outlawing guns.

Obama voted against the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito (two of the five who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller, and told the audience at the Saddleback Forum last August he would not have appointed Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.

OK, now you're *really* reaching here. Because Obama is against conservative judges, he therefore also wants to outlaw guns? That's like saying because you vote against Sotomayor, you're against everything she supports. Not necessarily true at all.

On Obama's Transition website, Change.gov, the President-elect announced his Urban Policy Agenda. In describing his plans to "address gun violence in cities", the website announced that "Obama and Biden... support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

And? How does being against a very specific type of automatic assault weapon, mean that you're against guns?

That's like saying because you think that people shouldn't be able to drive privately-owned tanks down the street, that you're against driving.

Now let's move to: "or any other of a number of high-ranking Democrats"

You're right, there. I should have said "a majority of high-ranking democrats", which would basically be a majority in either the Senate or the House - I'll take either.

jim x:RE: "Also no... (Below threshold)
kevino:

jim x:

RE: "Also notice also that *Friedman* wasn't advocating a dictatorship - he was simply pointing out if you have a dictatorship, it is easier for leaders to get some things done."

Bzzzzzz. Sorry. Your answer is incorrect. Thanks for playing.

Friedman not only said that he wanted to be like China, he "fantasized" about it. You don't fantasize about something you don't want.

Secondly, his goal wasn't to get things done easier. What he said was:

I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to itiveness. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.

It not about being easy. He wants compromise removed. One side - one set of solutions - will be the only way. Unlike President Bush, he doesn't mind removing all other opinions. The goal is to, in Friedman's words:

We could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions.

Because this is his fantasy, I'm sure that his solutions are the solutions that will be authorized and all other ideas will be, well, not authorized. (One wouldn't fantasize about an authoritarian system that crushed your ideas.)

And that gets to the root of the matter. This famous "liberal" is fantasizing about US government with the same authority as the Chinese government -- one that authorizes the right solutions.

Why are liberal pigs like Friedman so obsessed with authority?

Friedman not only said t... (Below threshold)

Friedman not only said that he wanted to be like China, he "fantasized" about it. You don't fantasize about something you don't want.

Ok, well if you're going to apply that literal interpretation, then GWB didn't merely "fantasize" about it - he **directly stated** that he wanted it. THREE TIMES.

Basically, it's like this: when you're judging and comparing people based entirely on their words, you have to apply the same standards to both people. Otherwise your entire analysis is useless.

So, since both Friedman and Bush were both expressing a liking for the potential positives of having a dictatorial system, they are either:

a) both saying they wish the US didn't have Democracy.
b) both noting that some things are easier in other systems than Democracy.

You can't just apply one interpretation to Bush ("he didn't really mean it, he just specifically said 'dictator' three different times"), but apply an entirely different interpretation to Friedman ("he did really mean it, because he said it once").

That is, you can apply separate interpretations to both - it just won't have any logical value.

Preview is my friend, again... (Below threshold)

Preview is my friend, again. I should have said:

"Ok, well if you're going to apply that literal interpretation, then GWB didn't merely say that he fantasized about it once - he **actually fantasized about** it THREE TIMES."

"You don't get everythin... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - Governing Magazine, July, 1998

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I'm the dictator." - Washington D.C. December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - Business Week, July 30, 2001

Full quotes put it in context:

"I told all four that there are going to be some times here we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"

-Referring to a congressional meeting, obviously not wishing to be a dictator, simply stating the fact that disagreement is part of the game of democracy.

The second quote, as Businessweek admits, was a joke by Bush regarding his relationship with the Hill.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2001/nf20010730_347.htm

The truth lies within the humour though, yes a dictator by definition doesn't have to go through the wrangle of opposition parties, and so could conceivably get things done quicker.

HOWEVER, Bush nor anyone in his administration actually made any attempts to do so, and no right-wing pundits never fantasized about him being dictator, even for a day. And certainly no media backed up said ideas or were complicit with them.

I never heard Kelsey Grammar wishing for the Bush Reich to come to fruition, after all...have you?


Ok, well if you're going... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Ok, well if you're going to apply that literal interpretation, then GWB didn't merely "fantasize" about it - he **directly stated** that he wanted it. THREE TIMES.

Well, no, he engaged in supposition. "If I were...". Supposition is not a direct statement.

"If this were a dictatorship..." note, he did not say "If I were a dictator" Strike one.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Again, supposition: "If this were a dictatorship, things would be easier." Again, not a direct wish statement. Strike two.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I'm the dictator." A conditional statement that would only hold true if the suppositional statement were to occur. Strike three.

Thanks for playing, we have some lovely consulation prizes for you. Tell him what he's won, Johnny...

Preview is my friend, ag... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Preview is my friend, again. I should have said:

"Ok, well if you're going to apply that literal interpretation, then GWB didn't merely say that he fantasized about it once - he **actually fantasized about** it THREE TIMES."

Preview wouldn't be your friend in either case, as I pointed out, these were not direct wish statements you are propositing, i.e. "I wish I were dictator for a day", "I want to be a dictator."

I would suggest abandoning the linguistic arguement, as your premises is weak to start with.

Would you consider Howar... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Would you consider Howard Dean a Leftist? I'd guess so. In which case you might be surprised to know that he received an A rating from the NRA.

a) Yes, I would.
b) One swallow does not make a summer.


And I'm certain you would consider Obama a Leftist. Which would have made it impossible for him to sign a law allowing civilians to have guns in Federal parks.

Clinton is a leftist as well, but he was forced to support welfare reform (which he ignored) until Congress got it's arse handed to them during the "Contract With America" revolt.

Again, one swallow doesn't make a summer.

Re: above, the parenthesis ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Re: above, the parenthesis should have been commas in the Clinton paragraph.

jim x:RE: "Ok, wel... (Below threshold)
kevino:

jim x:

RE: "Ok, well if you're going to apply that literal interpretation, then GWB didn't merely 'fantasize' about it - he **directly stated** that he wanted it. THREE TIMES."

Bzzzzzz. Wrong again.

It's not a "literal interpretation": it's reading skills -- something you are showing that you don't have. Words have meaning.

When did President Bush say that he "wanted" to be a dictator? When did he use that word? This comes back to what I said back in #22:

If you could find a quote where Bush stated something like, "I have fantasized . . . what if we could just be China for a day," or "It would be good if I could be dictator for a few years because I could do a lot of good things quickly," then you would have a point.

But you don't, do you? You're just embarrassing yourself.

BTW: For your edification, fantasizing about something shows a much stronger desire for something than merely wanting it.

James Cloninger:

Thanks for providing the context and your excellent analysis. If jim x could produce a reasonable quote, he would have. Bush's statements -- taken in context -- show a faith in our system and a sense of humor that liberals don't have.

Oh, come on Kevina and Jame... (Below threshold)

Oh, come on Kevina and James C.

It's of course your privilege to interpret Bush's statements as *not* meaning something, but Friedman's as *definitely* meaning the same something.

But it seems pretty clear to me that they are both clearly opining about the same thing - that some things are easier in a dictatorship than a democracy.

And to be clear, I personally consider both statements to be innocent. Rather than indicating some conspiratorial world-conquering mindset on the part of "The Left" or Bush.

Clinton is a leftist as well, but he was forced to support welfare reform (which he ignored) until Congress got it's arse handed to them during the "Contract With America" revolt.

Then the definition of "Leftist" is so loose that it doesn't have any useful properties.

So what if Bush said "I'm t... (Below threshold)
John:

So what if Bush said "I'm the 2ond coming of Adolf Hitler himself" what the hell does that have to do with this current let's make O a dictator? Can we please "move on" from Bush, and since when does Bush did it give you a pass?

It's clear there are liberals that don't want to deal with the electorate. How about everyone just point at them and laugh because they sound like complete idiots.

jim x:RE: "It's of... (Below threshold)
kevino:

jim x:

RE: "It's of course your privilege to interpret Bush's statements as *not* meaning something, but Friedman's as *definitely* meaning the same something."

Your entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. You've been caught taking statements out of context and interpreting them in a way that defies logic and common sense.

And you've been challenged to come up with a better example. You can't. You're all done.


RE: "But it seems pretty clear to me that they are both clearly opining about the same thing - that some things are easier in a dictatorship than a democracy."

And it's pretty clear to me that you can't read and can't defend your statements. For example, As I said before: Friedman's comments do not talk about the process being easier. The first time that the word "easy" or "easier" was used on this page was in the comment string, and it was used in your Bush quotes. Again: you can't read.

Thanks for coming.

Kevino:First, to a... (Below threshold)

Kevino:

First, to accuse me of taking quotes out of context, while not providing any context for Friedman's statement, is ridiculous.

Second, it is clear, even by your interpretation, that Bush was commenting on how some things would be easier in a dictatorship than a democracy. For you to pretend that this is entirely different from what Friedman was saying, is also ridiculous.

To quote Friedman directly now from the above article:

I don't want to be China for a second, OK, I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.

Are you honestly going to type there and suggest that Friedman isn't talking about getting things done more easily? Honestly, what else *could he* be talking about, if it wasn't that?

It's pretty clear that you don't want to interpret both statements with the same set of standards. You want to apply the worst possible interpretations of what Friedman said, and the best possible interpretations of what Bush said, and pretend that's an equal analysis.

Which is your business. I'm just here to point out to you that it is not equal.

In any case, thanks for bei... (Below threshold)

In any case, thanks for being here and discussing this in a generally polite manner.

RE: "First, to accuse me of... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "First, to accuse me of taking quotes out of context, while not providing any context for Friedman's statement, is ridiculous."

Incorrect: I accused you of taking President Bush's comments out of context - period. #38 by Cloninger illustrates that nicely, and the context shreds you interpretation.

RE: "Second, it is clear, even by your interpretation, that Bush was commenting on how some things would be easier in a dictatorship than a democracy. For you to pretend that this is entirely different from what Friedman was saying, is also ridiculous."

Bzzzzzz. Wrong again: they are different, as I stated in #22, #35, and #43. One more time: Bush didn't indicate that he wanted, desired, or fantasized about a United States run by a dictatorship. Friedman and Allen DID exactly that.

Can you understand it? No? OK, then you should be able to find a quote says that he wanted, desired, or fantasized about being dictator. As I asked in #22 and again in #43:

If you could find a quote where Bush stated something like, "I have fantasized . . . what if we could just be China for a day," or "It would be good if I could be dictator for a few years because I could do a lot of good things quickly," then you would have a point.

RE: "Honestly, what else *could he* be talking about, if it wasn't that?"

[yawn] Asked and answered in #35:

Secondly, his goal wasn't to get things done easier. What he said was:
I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to itiveness. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.

It not about being easy. He wants compromise removed. One side - one set of solutions - will be the only way. Unlike President Bush, he doesn't mind removing all other opinions. The goal is to, in Friedman's words:

We could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions.

He's talking about results. He's talking about "authorizing the right solutions". Again, notice that the key word is "authority". The word "easy" isn't used.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy