Obama's economic advisor no "White Male Construction Workers"

[luckytxn 2,265]

Since when is stupidity quantifiable?

Ask britty....she seems qualified to make such declarations.

She's as qualified to think he's stupid as many are to think Bush is stupid. I also think Obama is stupid. He and little man Reich don't seem to be aware that white construction workers are an endangered species and could use a stimulus plan. That's just plain stupid.

How did I miss this gem. I suppose we can think whatever we want about our elected officials - as to whether our opinion are baseless or grounded in evidence....that's a different story - and is the gist of my argument. Again, re-emphasize there's a difference between saying something stupid and being stupid. britty, from her enlightening posts doesn't seem to make the distinction. Example - United Nations is corrupt because, according to her logic, there has been corruption within the governing body, yet she can't or doesn't make the same conclusion about the Bush Administration or other governments in general.

Trust me we all know that Bush administration was corrupt. We also know that Obamas administration will be just as corrupt if not more so. It has been know for a long time that the UN has been very corrupt and the odds are it will likely remain so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Example - United Nations is corrupt because, according to her logic, there has been corruption within the governing body, yet she can't or doesn't make the same conclusion about the Bush Administration or other governments in general.

If you can't distinguish between the U.S. government and the UN, you've got problems. Americans are 100% responsible for their government for good or ill. We don't have much choice unless you'd like to outsource governance to say the UN perhaps?

Exactly how is the U.S. expected to reform an organization is has only one vote in but pays around 25% of the budget?

Who said I can't distinguish the two governments? The basic argument is the same - corruption exists to varying degrees in all forms of government, but it's a bit of stretch to conclude that all government is hopelessly corrupt as some believe the UN to be. The United Nations has its own Constitutional government and operates democratically as ours. What flaw by design do you think makes them inherently corrupt in a way that would exceed any type of corruption we see in our own government?

[alienlovechild 75]

Who said I can't distinguish the two governments?

You're comparing them as roughly equal and they aren't. The only comparision was in corruption.

The basic argument is the same - corruption exists to varying degrees in all forms of government, but it's a bit of stretch to conclude that all government is hopelessly corrupt as some believe the UN to be.

Even I would concede we need a national government with the power to tax, make laws . . . by contrast the UN does almost nothing essential except to hold our seat on the Sceurity Council.

The United Nations has its own Constitutional government and operates democratically as ours. What flaw by design do you think makes them inherently corrupt in a way that would exceed any type of corruption we see in our own government?

Hardly, unless it would acceptable to that some U.S. states just appoint rather than elect representatives to Congress. Non-democratic countries have the same vote as democratic ones so the comparison is even close on legitimacy. We do have a thing called elections here and we can toss the bums out, constitutional changes, federalism. . . We can't do much to change the UN but are b1tched at if we don't pay up. If I'm wrong please list all major reforms in the UN led by any U.S. administration in the last 64 years.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who said I can't distinguish the two governments?

You're comparing them as roughly equal and they aren't. The only comparision was in corruption.

The basic argument is the same - corruption exists to varying degrees in all forms of government, but it's a bit of stretch to conclude that all government is hopelessly corrupt as some believe the UN to be.

Even I would concede we need a national government with the power to tax, make laws . . . by contrast the UN does almost nothing essential except to hold our seat on the Sceurity Council.

The United Nations has its own Constitutional government and operates democratically as ours. What flaw by design do you think makes them inherently corrupt in a way that would exceed any type of corruption we see in our own government?

Hardly, unless it would acceptable to that some U.S. states just appoint rather than elect representatives to Congress. Non-democratic countries have the same vote as democratic ones so the comparison is even close on legitimacy. We do have a thing called elections here and we can toss the bums out, constitutional changes, federalism. . . We can't do much to change the UN but are b1tched at if we don't pay up. If I'm wrong please list all major reforms in the UN led by any U.S. administration in the last 64 years.

Sorry, I can't do split replies and this is already going way off topic...but....

We don't elect a lot of officials within our government but that doesn't mean we don't have a representative government. Bush appointed John Bolton as our UN Ambassador - did that trouble you? I fail to see how the UN is inherently corrupt, which I know gets pumped out into the Right Wing blogosphere and into the airwaves. It would be a lot more productive and intellectual honest to criticize what is seen as corrupt or wrong within the UN then calling the it as a whole corrupt. The Right Wingers have contempt for the UN because it skeers them....they worry about the New World Order, losing our sovereignty and that other nonsensical fearmongering, which then manifests itself as, "Well, I don't like the UN because....well, because it's corrupt." No, they don't like the idea to begin with.

[alienlovechild 75]

We don't elect a lot of officials within our government but that doesn't mean we don't have a representative government. Bush appointed John Bolton as our UN Ambassador - did that trouble you?

The difference Bush of any president was elected and has the power to appoint officials. If don't know that you need a take a government class. NOBODY elects many leaders around the world yet you give theri reps an equal vote in the UN General Assembly. Like I said you can't tell the difference on the fundementals.

I fail to see how the UN is inherently corrupt, which I know gets pumped out into the Right Wing blogosphere and into the airwaves. It would be a lot more productive and intellectual honest to criticize what is seen as corrupt or wrong within the UN then calling the it as a whole corrupt. The Right Wingers have contempt for the UN because it skeers them....they worry about the New World Order, losing our sovereignty and that other nonsensical fearmongering, which then manifests itself as, "Well, I don't like the UN because....well, because it's corrupt." No, they don't like the idea to begin with.

You entirely missed my point about how one institution the U.S. government is indispensible and UN is not a necessity except for the Security Council seat. If your going to defend the UN you need a better defense than about how other than how evil rightwingers criticise the UN. Corrupt or not the UN does little good. It is scary that you as American will no doubt (always happens in this debate) would like to give the UN more power to carry out the UN charter without any knowledge of achievements or caring about out it impacts this country. You sneer at those you even question the UN so you clearly aren't interested in any safeguards on UN power.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't elect a lot of officials within our government but that doesn't mean we don't have a representative government. Bush appointed John Bolton as our UN Ambassador - did that trouble you?

The difference Bush of any president was elected and has the power to appoint officials. If don't know that you need a take a government class. NOBODY elects many leaders around the world yet you give theri reps an equal vote in the UN General Assembly. Like I said you can't tell the difference on the fundementals.

I fail to see how the UN is inherently corrupt, which I know gets pumped out into the Right Wing blogosphere and into the airwaves. It would be a lot more productive and intellectual honest to criticize what is seen as corrupt or wrong within the UN then calling the it as a whole corrupt. The Right Wingers have contempt for the UN because it skeers them....they worry about the New World Order, losing our sovereignty and that other nonsensical fearmongering, which then manifests itself as, "Well, I don't like the UN because....well, because it's corrupt." No, they don't like the idea to begin with.

You entirely missed my point about how one institution the U.S. government is indispensible and UN is not a necessity except for the Security Council seat. If your going to defend the UN you need a better defense than about how other than how evil rightwingers criticise the UN. Corrupt or not the UN does little good. It is scary that you as American will no doubt (always happens in this debate) would like to give the UN more power to carry out the UN charter without any knowledge of achievements or caring about out it impacts this country. You sneer at those you even question the UN so you clearly aren't interested in any safeguards on UN power.

It's like we're having two different arguments. Go back to in the thread and re-read what I was making a point of - and that is drawing a conclusion (UN is corrupt) based on select examples (oil for food). If you want to have discussion over the ineffectiveness of the UN, then that's another argument and probably deserves it's own thread.

[nowhereman 1]

Nah lets just skewer him like the Socialists have always done for anyone that disagrees with them. Why be different?

Just wonderin' who you're referring to here?

He has no idea. Apparently as long as you label someone a socialist or liberal it means your views are correct.

[Ban Hammer 13,654]

Nah lets just skewer him like the Socialists have always done for anyone that disagrees with them. Why be different?

Just wonderin' who you're referring to here?

He has no idea. Apparently as long as you label someone a socialist or liberal it means your views are correct.

the same could be said about labeling people as neocons.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Nah lets just skewer him like the Socialists have always done for anyone that disagrees with them. Why be different?

Oh, but the Fascists are much more better at skewering.

Nahhh. Just ask Stalin.

[nowhereman 1]

Nah lets just skewer him like the Socialists have always done for anyone that disagrees with them. Why be different?

Just wonderin' who you're referring to here?

He has no idea. Apparently as long as you label someone a socialist or liberal it means your views are correct.

the same could be said about labeling people as neocons.

Well the problem here on VJ is that anyone who opposes the right wing mentality is labeled a liberal or socialist. Here's a piece of info... something like 39% of Americans are moderates and less than 20% are liberals. That means a whole bunch of moderates are being lumped in with the liberals.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Well the problem here on VJ is that anyone who opposes the right wing mentality is labeled a liberal or socialist. Here's a piece of info... something like 39% of Americans are moderates and less than 20% are liberals. That means a whole bunch of moderates are being lumped in with the liberals.

The problem with self-labelling, is that few people want to call themselves "extemist", out of self-preservation perhaps. You can make your position seem much more "reasonable", if you call yourself "moderate", "progressive", or "pragmatic", and label the opposition as the furthest extreme. Truth be told, few of us are true purists to any political position.

"If you are young, and not an Idealist, you have no soul. If you are old, and not a little more pragmatic, you are a fool!"

--Bullwinkle

[luckytxn 2,265]

No. Most are more Socialist or a Neocon than they will admit. They are the ones labeling themselves progressive or some other such nonsense. For some reason they attach a negative to it so will grasp at any other definition to make themselves feel better. I find this pathetic. I like someone and can at least respect them if they are honest. I may not agree with their views but do respect them. It is the ones that say all these principles that define they are Socialist or a Neocon but say they are something else that I don't respect. There are actually other parties out there that would honestly reflect their true beliefs if they were being honest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No. Most are more Socialist or a Neocon than they will admit. They are the ones labeling themselves progressive or some other such nonsense. For some reason they attach a negative to it so will grasp at any other definition to make themselves feel better. I find this pathetic. I like someone and can at least respect them if they are honest. I may not agree with their views but do respect them. It is the ones that say all these principles that define they are Socialist or a Neocon but say they are something else that I don't respect. There are actually other parties out there that would honestly reflect their true beliefs if they were being honest.

I can't say I respect people who throw around misunderstood labels

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the problem here on VJ is that anyone who opposes the right wing mentality is labeled a liberal or socialist. Here's a piece of info... something like 39% of Americans are moderates and less than 20% are liberals. That means a whole bunch of moderates are being lumped in with the liberals.

The problem with self-labelling, is that few people want to call themselves "extemist", out of self-preservation perhaps. You can make your position seem much more "reasonable", if you call yourself "moderate", "progressive", or "pragmatic", and label the opposition as the furthest extreme. Truth be told, few of us are true purists to any political position.

"If you are young, and not an Idealist, you have no soul. If you are old, and not a little more pragmatic, you are a fool!"

--Bullwinkle

Self-labelling is deceptive. Whatever a person chooses to call themselves as far as their political ideologies go (as to a large extent we're dealing in subjective interpretations of those things) - doesn't change the fact that these words aren't interchangeable labels, they do have specific (and frequently misunderstood) meanings.

Ideologies aren't inherently negative.

[Ban Hammer 13,654]

Nah lets just skewer him like the Socialists have always done for anyone that disagrees with them. Why be different?

Just wonderin' who you're referring to here?

He has no idea. Apparently as long as you label someone a socialist or liberal it means your views are correct.

the same could be said about labeling people as neocons.

Well the problem here on VJ is that anyone who opposes the right wing mentality is labeled a liberal or socialist. Here's a piece of info... something like 39% of Americans are moderates and less than 20% are liberals. That means a whole bunch of moderates are being lumped in with the liberals.

more statistics without a link to them?

you also ignore the problem on vj of anyone who opposes the left wing mentality is a neocon/racist/redneck/etc

Edited January 25, 2009 by charles!