jeff2sf wrote:Right, and my point was... Bush is bad, it sucks what he did, but you know, in this partisan world we now live in, I don't see it getting better. I went a step further and said the good old days may not have been as good as you remember them (and at that point, I was labelled clueless by TV).

And I guess my point is that since we haven't heard really anything to suggest it was ever this bad before, or even close, and it's theoretically within our power to punish any party or individual that does seem committed to politicizing the government, we should insist that it does get better.

Also, isn't there some contradiction between your/my view that either of these guys represents a big improvement over Bush in ways that aren't policy-specific, and what seems to be your view that the more or less total politicization of the state is inevitable?

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It's Stalinism without the Stalinism.

Seriously, you step out of the internet for a little while, step back in, and you see some really ridiculous hyperbole.

Yeah, because I'm saying exactly that Bush is a Bolshevik mass murderer. Not that his (really Rove's) approach to consolidating power is to use the bureaucracy as a political tool. Which was what Stalin did in winning his power struggle.

But, as you know, I'm just a wild-eyed Bush/America-hating libburl who doesn't actually think things through or know anything I'm talking about.

Dude, the comparison is awful and some part of you knows it. If there weren't so many moonbats making the comparison you'd have never made it yourself because you'd have been ashamed to.

That's crap. I don't interact much with "moonbats," and I can't remember seeing any other comparison between Bush and Stalin in terms of political strategy.

You think it's awful because "Stalinism" means death camps, Siberia to you. There isn't much I can do about that, other than saying "without the death camps." But again, if you acknowledge there might be something to the comparison, you don't get to laugh at the crazy lefty gay terrorist-coddlers.

Stalin was responsible for the death of tens of millions of people. Staffing the DoJ with wacky Christians might be a bad thing, and an "ism" of some sort. Stalinism though? I'm gonna say no.

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Right, and my point was... Bush is bad, it sucks what he did, but you know, in this partisan world we now live in, I don't see it getting better. I went a step further and said the good old days may not have been as good as you remember them (and at that point, I was labelled clueless by TV).

And I guess my point is that since we haven't heard really anything to suggest it was ever this bad before, or even close, and it's theoretically within our power to punish any party or individual that does seem committed to politicizing the government, we should insist that it does get better.

Also, isn't there some contradiction between your/my view that either of these guys represents a big improvement over Bush in ways that aren't policy-specific, and what seems to be your view that the more or less total politicization of the state is inevitable?

Ok, fair points... As to your first paragraph, I think part of the problem is that Bush's policies/minions are so reprehensible with respect to the Justice Department (he essentially opted us out of the freakin Geneva Convention), that it's more noticeable. I also acknowledge fully that if it did go on in the past, Bush escalated the crap out of it.

The second paragraph deals with this escalation and it's something LaX pointed out. Doesn't Obama pretty much "HAVE" to do some wholesale firing when he wins? He may not have time to sort out the conservatives from Harvard and the conservatives from Regents. So to some extent, Obama needs to "fix" the DoJ. When the Republicans move back in, they'll need to "fix" all of Obama's egregious mistakes. And the cycle repeats where the only distinction on justified vs. unjustified depends on your political leanings.

dajafi wrote:That's crap. I don't interact much with "moonbats," and I can't remember seeing any other comparison between Bush and Stalin in terms of political strategy.

You think it's awful because "Stalinism" means death camps, Siberia to you. There isn't much I can do about that, other than saying "without the death camps." But again, if you acknowledge there might be something to the comparison, you don't get to laugh at the crazy lefty gay terrorist-coddlers.

Bush Stalin 500,000 hits. You sure sound like a moonbat, if you don't read them. Your defensiveness and desire to characterize my criticism of your outlandish comparison is further evidence of this.

It's awful because it demonstrates a complete disregard for history and you aren't that dumb. Even your desire to limit the comparison so narrowly in order to defend it is weak - or are you finally coming out and admitting that you believe Karl Rove is actually executing people? Even then the comparison to Che Guevarra would be more apt.

Even to say "I know he's not actually executing people" just leads to the next equivocation and the next and the next in the never ending winnowing of the comparison down to the ultimate fact of it's lack of merit.

Bush has more in common with Donald Duck.

I'm evidently not communicating anything very well tonight. As I'm getting more and more pissed at the Phillies offense, this could get ugly way out of proportion to its importance, so how about I just leave this here.

jeff: My understanding is that pre-Bush, every new president--whether the same party as his predecessor or not--restaffed the DoJ at the start of his term. Most of those appointees presumably were of the same party as the president. But once the term started, the DoJ did its thing mostly independent of the political operation. This wasn't the case under Bush. I do think it will be case whoever wins next year.

Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Fair enough. I wish you a tasty beer or something, and many home runs.

jerseyhoya wrote:Fair enough. I wish you a tasty beer or something, and many home runs.

I'm too pissed off (and full) to drink. It's fucking Joe Blanton and they can't score a run.

i'd like to waterboard all of you at the new Oakland Alameda Governator death camp

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

This from the guy who picks semantic fights rather than actually arguing any points.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

This from the guy who picks semantic fights rather than actually arguing any points.

This from the guy who said "...see the whole thing mainly through the prism of domestic politics and who wins/who loses (like baseball!)..." rather than discussing the actual, real life points I was making about Iraq.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

This from the guy who picks semantic fights rather than actually arguing any points.

This from the guy who said "...see the whole thing mainly through the prism of domestic politics and who wins/who loses (like baseball!)..." rather than discussing the actual, real life points I was making about Iraq.

You made points about a policy question?

It's not semantics, you're still deflecting. I grant you the last "whatever", I'll go back to secretly laughing at all of the posts I read in this thread and refrain from saying so.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

This from the guy who picks semantic fights rather than actually arguing any points.

This from the guy who said "...see the whole thing mainly through the prism of domestic politics and who wins/who loses (like baseball!)..." rather than discussing the actual, real life points I was making about Iraq.

You made points about a policy question?

I'd say this is at least sniffing a point about a policy question.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks we're free and clear or that it's all peachy over there. That part you excerpted talked about how instrumental the US special forces have been in the turn around. The growing competence of the Iraqi army is vital and all, but they wouldn't be executing this turnaround without the Americans on the ground there.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

This from the guy who picks semantic fights rather than actually arguing any points.

What point? The one you were trying to make comparing Bush to Stalin? It's shot, you're done, the comparison is ridiculous (and you haven't even attempted to defend it, only recategorize and run from it).

The artist formerly known as dajafi used to be above such things. I think jerseyhoya and PTK are bringing you down.

The point was that both staffed the bureaucracy with loyalists to better hold onto power. I made it again and again. You refuse to acknowledge any validity to it because you insist that "Stalinism" means only death camps. I wanted to let it go because the comparison is distracting--I do acknowledge that--but you're apparently intent on playing the role of Laexile this evening and arguing for the sake of arguing. So I guess I'll indulge you if that's what you want.

I'm just glad dajafi memorialized Vox calling me PtK in this thread.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Vox/hoya: This is a dumb argument, as most semantical ones are. I'm pretty confident I know enough about Soviet history--I am, after all, a "moonbat"-- to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set to make the comparison within the limited parameters I tried to set. But I regret offending your historical sensibilities. So forget it.

Lame.

This from the guy who picks semantic fights rather than actually arguing any points.

This from the guy who said "...see the whole thing mainly through the prism of domestic politics and who wins/who loses (like baseball!)..." rather than discussing the actual, real life points I was making about Iraq.

You made points about a policy question?

I'd say this is at least sniffing a point about a policy question.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks we're free and clear or that it's all peachy over there. That part you excerpted talked about how instrumental the US special forces have been in the turn around. The growing competence of the Iraqi army is vital and all, but they wouldn't be executing this turnaround without the Americans on the ground there.

Which you initially framed as something like "when oh when will Obama acknowledge the glorious greatness of our Iraq triumph rather than continue sucking up to the surrender monkeys"? Call me crazy, but that smelled to me like seeing it through the prism of domestic politics.

Maybe these conversations will be easier in an off-year.

Here's a quiz which helps you evaluate your political leanings with regards to economics. http://mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4

It's quite lengthy, but the findings were interesting. I scored an 83/100 (on a scale of Socialist to Austrian).

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm just glad dajafi memorialized Vox calling me PtK in this thread.

I can't stop laughing at this. Maybe it is time for a beer.