En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/01/26/0805

From Issuepedia
< En Tequila Es Verdad‎ | progressive conservatism‎ | post‎ | 2009
Revision as of 20:29, 28 July 2010 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (moved En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/2009/01/26/0805 to En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/01/26/0805: we'll have "post" for the individual posts, and "posts" for showing them all on one page)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 26, 2009 8:05 AM - Woozle

Woozle said...

"The money saved by more efficient transportation of goods dwarfs the money saved by offering public transit."

You're just re-asserting your claim again. Some data, please.

"Also, if a company saves $5 million a year because transit times are reduced, that is likely going to be money they can spend on other things, like hiring new employees."

Also, if 10,000 people collectively save $5 million a year because of reduced transportation expenses, that is likely going to be money they can spend on other things, like buying consumer products. (Or, thinking more real-conservatively, to put into savings or invest in education.)

"How many times did we go to war under Clinton? Somali, Iraq, Bosnia."

That's quite different from being pro-war.

Somalia: Clinton went in with international cooperation to stop a humanitarian crisis -- not as an act of vengeance or conquest.
Iraq: Clinton initiated a 4-day bombing campaign intended to avert the need for actual war later on. Conservatives claimed, at the time, that he was just trying to deflect attention away from crucial domestic issues, like whether or not he was cheating on his wife (because, after all, how does tiny Iraq pose a threat to America?). Later on, they claimed he had been soft on terrorism. Are they back to claiming he was a warmonger? Stay tuned.
Bosnia: Again, we went in with an international coalition to stop a humanitarian crisis, and did so with astonishing success. No American solders were killed in combat during that operation, and the people in that part of the world still see Clinton as a hero.

Thanks for playing.

"It seems liberals like war just fine, so long as they are the ones running the show."

If the ultimate goal is promoting peace, then one might say this (albeit stretching the meaning of "like" rather a lot).

Bush's wars were all about promoting and spreading more war. He couldn't get enough of it, and never wanted it to end. For all I can tell, his conservative base felt pretty much the same way about it, too.

It's as if they didn't feel safe unless America was fighting someone... which is such a mindbogglingly stupid attitude that I hesitate to give it credence, but it's the only theory that seems to fit their behavior.