Comments on: Blinking first: what did the Democrats think was going to happen?

By: Vieux Charles

Vieux Charles — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 02:55:17 +0000

×¢bamah

By: Manfred

Manfred — Sat, 26 May 2007 14:01:03 +0000

AVI made an excellent point. A “true believer” will never question the axioms of his belief system. He would rather repeat himself ad nauseum, than to go on an honest hunting expedition in the netherlands of human belief structures.

This is true of religious, political, and philosophical true believers.

Sadly, it takes more than a well myelinated pre-frontal cortex to give a person good judgment.

By: Dean's World

Dean's World — Sat, 26 May 2007 13:25:08 +0000

Political Theater…

Neo notes the sad reality of political theater….

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:37:21 +0000

Personality disordered clients often quite sincerely believe that if you are not agreeing with them, you must not have heard them. They cannot conceive of a person hearing, understanding, and not agreeing. A technique I use in talking with these clients is to ask them to articulate another’s point of view, even if they disagree with it. They are seldom able to describe anything but a caricature of another’s idea. Sometimes not even that.

I have been using this exercise with profit in online discussions with progressives. It has been both instructive and sadly intriguing to read their attempts. Many refuse the attempt at all, wanting only to repeat themselves. But it has been shocking to me how little able people with large vocabularies and facts at their fingertips are to articulate what contrary opinions even consist of.

By: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle — Thu, 24 May 2007 10:24:51 +0000

The following letter was published in today’s New York Times. The Democrats are basically spineless. (No wonder – they are just as much in the pocket of Big Business as Republicans are, too):

To the Editor:

The assertion that the Democrats cannot overcome a presidential veto does not excuse their failure to set withdrawal dates. All financing for the war originates in the House; if the Democrats had tied financing of the war to a withdrawal timetable, a presidential veto would mean that the president had no money to fight the war.

The House Democrats had the power to cut off or restrict financing; they failed to exercise it. The setting of benchmarks for the Iraqi government in the proposed bill is meaningless. The determination of whether Iraq meets those benchmarks is up to the president. Does anyone doubt what his determination will be?

I have seen this before. Year after year in the 1980s, Congress mandated that the government of El Salvador meet certain human rights requirements and left the determination to the president. Year after year, despite no real improvement in human rights, the president dutifully certified the contrary, and the aid to El Salvador continued.

Sadly, if the Democrats continue on their current course, the war will be with us for a very long time.

Michael Ratner
New York, May 23, 2007

The writer is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

By: camojack

camojack — Thu, 24 May 2007 08:10:15 +0000

“By their fruits you shall know them.”

By: harry

harry — Thu, 24 May 2007 03:45:15 +0000

Yeah, but you know neo, many on the left really dont get it. I mean, yes, the far left hates the idea that the surrender time-table wasnt veto proof, but the less rabid think they’ve fought the good fight. That (get this) after 6 years of Republican rule in Congress, they were finally having a debate about Iraq that the nation hadnt previously had.