Respectfully, I don’t think that’s the problem. The downsides in each party are not symmetrical. The problem is that fact-resistant ideologues have the upper hand in the Republican party. Moderates have been driven out and adults like Lugar and Bob Dole have been sidelined.[1] This is less the case among Democrats, since Bill Clinton outmaneuvered and blunted the lefties. Example: Schumer (D, NY) who really is a loudmouth does not dominate his party.
Neoconservatives got us into this mess in Iraq without thinking through the endgame. They shouted down those who urged caution and staffed reconstruction with people who had no background in post-conflict situations. Thankfully, the neos are no longer in power; adults like Condileeza Rice are left to clean up the mess.
Things are clearer on the budget front. I defy you to find a single conservative pundit who will speak openly about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. They won’t. At the same time, they don’t loudly voice the sorts of spending cuts that would be necessary to make the books balance. Admittedly some (not all) will say that deficits don’t matter, but they don’t flesh that argument out for the 2010+ period, when the numbers get really ugly. Conclusion: the intellectual foundations of modern conservatism are bankrupt: faced with this situation modern conservatives typically substitute bluster. It’s a dodge.
I have to agree with you there.
Let me summarize. The left has lots of pundits like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall who endeavor to police the borders of liberal thought. That is, they will criticize the likes of Michael Moore (though admittedly, they will also note that entertainer’s better aspects). Unfortunately, modern conservatives lack a similar stream of thought. Unconstrained by empiricism, there is only feel-good ideology.
To explain the preceding leads naturally to a discussion of motives. Which I won’t go into here: such discussion is necessarily speculative and tangential to my main point.
[1] John McCain is a notable exception, as he has a decent shot at the Presidency.
ISTM that when you call a poster who’s not even in the thread “contemptible”, you should at least link to some of that poster’s alleged contemptibleness - especially when he’s not posted in ages, and his contemptibility may not be fresh in our minds.
That you are being an idiot is pretty self-evident to anyone who’s read your drivel. That you are on your way to banning is partly prediction and partly hope.
Anyone who falsifies a quote (“Cause for us, it’s all about the bloodshed, torture and rapacity.” ) as you have done is probably not long for the Dope.
Ok, but I’d hate to generalize that POV. The US, like any other nation, has legitimate security concerns and furthermore many military activities are rather defendable (Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind, as would Darfur).
Frankly, I think the military needs more officers with liberal leanings (not that I’m saying that Airman D is a liberal).
Well, ain’t thatspecial - slamming stuff that happened here a year before you signed up at the Dope.
As you may have noticed, I was in that thread. I’m fully aware of what Bluesman said here back then.
But it wasn’t the only thing he posted here - wrong as it was for him to say those things in that way, it was hardly the total measure of the man, even when we limit the discussion to his SDMB persona.
I would recommend you choose your words more carefully.
Colin Powell was once a reputable man too. He played his part and went to lie for the Republican administration in order to facilitate the needless death of tens of thousands of innocent people. Clearly it was a popular career move in the service.
So you’ll forgive me if I neglect to mention that he also cooks a mean pumpkin pie.
Great analogy, dude. Between someone who actually was one of those responsible for the Iraq Debacle, and someone who was obnoxious in three or four threads on one issue here on the Dope.