And to think that just a few days ago one of my trolls was trying to convince me that Chuck Hagel isn't an idiot:
"Joe Biden is the right partner for Barack Obama. His many years of distinguished service to America, his seasoned judgment and his vast experience in foreign policy and national security will match up well with the unique challenges of the 21st Century. An Obama-Biden ticket is a very impressive and strong team. Biden's selection is good news for Obama and America."
I don't understand why the guy even bothers to call himself a Republican.
[Late afternoon update]
Oy:
Maybe when I get to Denver I'll find someone who'll explain to me why Biden is an inspired choice. He doesn't have gravitas. He has seniority. We've been waiting for him to mature for decades. Only Chuck Hagel (his chief competitor as Sunday morning gasbag) could make him look wise...
Because that is what got him elected
I know, but he's not running again.
And to think that just a few days ago one of my trolls was trying to convince me that Chuck Hagel isn't an idiot
Actually, the main point was that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That's not the same as saying that Hagel would never look like an idiot in any situation.
And no, it is not trolling as defined by Wikipedia. It truly is a big mistake for you to call so many people idiots. That statement is both sincere and on-topic. If anything, you're the one trolling the election, with inflammatory comments about Obama, Biden, and Hagel.
"If anything, you're the one trolling the election, with inflammatory comments about Obama, Biden, and Hagel."
I think calling the truth inflammitory is rather trollish of you, Jim.
Come on, Jim, Rand can't be trolling on his own blog pretty much by definition. A "troll" is a post to a public forum that derails its purpose into some irrelevant flame war, yes?
But Rand defines the purpose of his forum. If he wants to say harshly critical things about Obama, and invite all and sundry to engage in a flame war in the comments, well, he's thereby defined the purpose of the forum, and by definition it can't be a troll.
people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Why on Earth not? Alcoholics can't condemn excessive drinking? AA is an immoral organization? Murderers can't condemn murder? As a general prescription, this is silly.
A "troll" is a post to a public forum that derails its purpose into some irrelevant flame war, yes?
If you take the public forum to be the blogosphere as a whole, then yes, someone can troll with his own blog.
Alcoholics can't condemn excessive drinking?
I didn't say "can't", I said "shouldn't". And condemning the act could be fine; the problem is condemning the people. In fact the whole point of AA is to provide some dignity for alcoholics as people. Someone who shows up at the meeting to call everyone else an idiot is making a huge mistake.
If you take the public forum to be the blogosphere as a whole, then yes, someone can troll with his own blog.
Yes, but only an idiot (and a troll) would do that.
For Someone who claims "I am not a Republican"
you seem awfully quick to be calling Republicans "Idiots"
and "Unprincipled Idiots" for deciding Senator Obama may
be the better man for the Presidency.
Why does someone have to be a Republican to point out an idiot that calls himself a Republican? Where is the logic in that? Is Mickey Kaus a Republican?
Is Mickey Kaus a Republican?
Mickey Kaus is an obvious RIABN: Republican in all but name. So are certain other people in this discussion.
Indeed, if you "don't understand" why Hagel "bothers to call himself a Republican", you have a simple path to enlightenment. Hagel "bothers to call himself a Republican" for exactly the same reasons that you "bother" to insist that you aren't one.
Mickey Kaus is an obvious RIABN: Republican in all but name.
[rolling eyes at stupidity]
So are certain other people in this discussion.
If you're idiotically (and that's the only way that it could be done) referring to me, don't you think it a requirement that Republicans actually, you know...vote Republican occasionally? I've only done so once in my life for president. And little more than that for any other office.
don't you think it a requirement that Republicans actually, you know...vote Republican occasionally?
But I didn't say that you're a Republican, I implied that you're a RIABN. If you're a Republican, sure, you'd probably (but not necessarily) vote Republican sometimes. If you're a RIABN, you'd repeat a lot of tendentious Republican ideology, and then do something else on election day to "prove" that you're not a Republican.
Another name for a certain kind of RIABN, by the way, is a "September 11th American".
Hate to break it to you, Jim (and I'll type slowly, so that perhaps even you'll get it). A "Republican In All But Name" would not call himself a Republican, but would usually vote Republican (as opposed to almost never voting Republican). Otherwise, he would be a "Republican In All But Name And Voting Pattern (And Party Registration And Beliefs)." There is in fact no way in which I am a Republican--not registered and have never been, don't vote that way, disagree with a lot of the party platform, etc., unless you think that considering Republicans marginally less awful than Democrats to be a Republican trait.
Apparently you've never heard the advice about holes. But it seems to be a bizarre hobby of yours to beclown yourself at my site.
Otherwise, a [RIABN] would be a "Republican In All But Name And Voting Pattern (And Party Registration And Beliefs)."
Voting pattern, sure. Party registration, sure. Beliefs are the kicker. The views that you express are 90% Republican. And most of your criticism of the party, witness this post about Hagel, is that it isn't Republican enough.
If you take the public forum to be the blogosphere as a whole, then yes, someone can troll with his own blog.
Er, no, Jim, that doesn't make sense. See, the problem with a troll is that the subsequent flame war takes over the communications channel, and people who want to get on with the legitimate business of the forum can't, because the flame war sucks up all the bandwidth.
But that can't apply to the entire blogosphere because it's bandwidth isn't limited (and if you give me some lame 20th-century argument about the social responsibility of major bloggers I'm going to smack you with a copy of Das Kapital and send you to a Chinese re-education camp). You can always go start your own blog, or visit some other, and leave TT alone if you think it's being turned into a flamefest.
Anyway, you're reaching. C'mon, just man up and admit you goofed in your use of the word.
There are lots of reasons why you may not be voting.
1) You could be a felon.
2) You could be a non-citizen.
What you haven't explained is why someone who isn't a Republican
calls Republican's "Unprincipled" for declaring for someone who is a Democrat.
Certainly you have never called Joe Lieberman "Unprincipled" for declaring
for McCain
There are lots of reasons why you may not be voting.
1) You could be a felon.
2) You could be a non-citizen.
Huh? Is this you attempt at a non-sequitor? Or, are you just unable to comprehend English?
Rand say he only voted for Republican once in his life. He didn't say he did not vote.
What you haven't explained is why someone who isn't a Republican calls Republican's "Unprincipled" for declaring for someone who is a Democrat. Certainly you have never called Joe Lieberman "Unprincipled" for declaring for McCain
I didn't call Hagel unprincipled because he declared for a Democrat. I called him unprincipled because I've never seen him display any coherent set of principles.
I didn't call Hagel unprincipled because he declared for a Democrat. I called him unprincipled because I've never seen him display any coherent set of principles.
Please name 5 US Senators who display a coherent set of principles by your standard.
I called him unprincipled because I've never seen him display any coherent set of principles.
This is a very odd sentence. Most people would go for a sentence like this: Senator A is unprincipled because he did unprincipled thing B and unprincipled thing C.
I'm not sure how one would 'display any coherent set of principles', other than by avoiding unprincipled actions. So what unprincipled things have you observed Senator Hagel doing? BTW, voting various different ways on an issue isn't unprincipled, if the voter thinks it doesn't matter.
Yours,
Wince
Please name 5 US Senators who display a coherent set of principles by your standard.
Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Mitch McConnell, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson. On most issues, it's pretty easy to predict how they would vote on them.
I'm not sure how one would 'display any coherent set of principles', other than by avoiding unprincipled actions.
By having one's words and actions correspond to a discernible set of principles.
So what unprincipled things have you observed Senator Hagel doing?
Since I can't figure out what his principles are, other than self aggrandizement, essentially everything he does is unprincipled. Apparently you have a different meaning of the word "principle" than I do.
BTW, voting various different ways on an issue isn't unprincipled, if the voter thinks it doesn't matter.
Huh?
All that means is that "the voter" lacks principles as well.
Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Mitch McConnell, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson. On most issues, it's pretty easy to predict how they would vote on them.
1. Principles and a consistent voting record are not the same thing.
2. I doubt you can predict how they would vote on every issue. Your contention you can do so is laughable. Are you really contending, for example, that all five of those men recieve either 100% or 0% on every one of the issue scorecards that lobbyists generate? Why do you think it's so hard to elect a Senator to the Presidency? They all have voting records which expose them to the charge of flip-flops.
By having one's words and actions correspond to a discernible set of principles.
OK, well, just because you can't discern Senator Hagel's principles doesn't mean he has none. Hard to be certain without a mind reading device. That's why I want an example of an unprincipled action. It's also possible that you simply don't have enough familiarity with Hagel's voting record. He might be a very consistent voter on farm issues or telecommunications or some other field which you haven't been reading about. Maybe because it's an issue that the press doesn't care about. How much do you know about Hagel's voting record? How many votes can you name? Have you read a big analysis of his votes? What about Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Mitch McConnell, Sam Brownback or Fred Thompson? How many votes can you name?
I really think you've bit off more than you can chew. Mainly because I think you've bit off more than anyone can chew!
All that means is that "the voter" lacks principles as well.
No it means I haven't explained it well enough.
If I don't care what color the rocket is and someone else does, I can trade my vote on rocket color for something I care about. And, if later the color vote comes up again I can trade my voter differently, as long as I only agreed on a one vote trade the first time, and still be completely principled.
But that's only a degenerate case. Here is an example of the general case. If your most important principle is national defense and your least important principle is free trade and in 2002 you make a deal with a set of Senators to make a major improvement in our defense at a minor cost to free trade, you are behaving in a principled manner by making a political trade off. If then in 2006 you make a deal with a set of Senators to make a major improvement in our free trade at an even smaller cost to defense, you are still behaving in a principled manner by making a political trade off.
Another method for determining if some one is principled is if they have done something difficult which is principled. From Hagel's bio:
Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.
That could be a very principled action. Again, hard to tell without a mind reading device.
You could just say that your intuition leads you to believe he's a snake oil salesman. That's a good explanation, and an honorable one.
Yours,
Wince
I doubt you can predict how they would vote on every issue.
I didn't say I could. I just said I could do so much better than I can with Chuck Hagel.
Are you really contending, for example, that all five of those men recieve either 100% or 0% on every one of the issue scorecards that lobbyists generate?
No, not that it's relevant.
Maybe because it's an issue that the press doesn't care about. How much do you know about Hagel's voting record?
I'm not going on his voting record. In this case, I'm going on his bloviations.
Hagel's bio is irrelevant. I honor his war record. When I refer to his principles, I'm talking about his political acts and words, not his personal life.