Speaking of absurd lefty rhetoric (I am beginning to remember why I did not blog the last few days), Oliver has some easy ‘solutions’ to America’s problems. They are all real beauties (it takes talent to start with a false premise and come to a hasty conclusion topped with an appeal to emotion, but it is there- find it for fun), but this one is just such a gem it deserves extra derision:
North Korea
Problem: The rhetoric towards North Korea is aggravating an already unstable nuclear entity.Solution: Address the Korean problem directly. Don’t make it appear that we can be held hostage by nuclear threats, but appreciate the seriousness of what North Korea could do.
For starters, let’s work through the flaws:
1.) The false assumption that rhetoric means ANYTHING to these people. They understand how they use it, which is belligerently and to achieve an aim, usually while engaging in duplicitious behavior behind the scenes, but it is not mere rhetoric which drives their behavior. It is understanding that we are serious which has ‘aggravated’ them. Which is a good thing. Unless you would like to go sign some more treaties and- wait. That is silly point #2.
2.) We are a hostage to other nations with nuclear weapons- within limits. Regardless, we are coming off a policy in which we not only acknowledged we were hostage to such threats, but we went the extra mile and PAID THE RANSOM.
3.) Is there really anyone who does not take the North Korean threat seriuosly? Oh yeah, I forgot- ‘Dubya’ is ‘stupid’ and ‘reckless.’ Talk about cheap rhetoric.
There you have it- the Democrats have all the solutions to those pesky questions. They are going to ‘take North Korea seriously.’ Go read them all- but don’t try to drink anything while reading them. You’ll be cleaning your monitor.
*** Update ***
Oliver responded, and in fairness, he deserves to be heard:
For months now, people (like yourself, John) have attacked Dems for attacking Bush but not providing alternatives. Now that I’ve done that, I get hit. I don’t expect you to take my statements like you would a candidate’s policy statements, but still…
That is just the point- these are not solutions- they are stylistic approaches for how to go about implementing the solutions, but there is no substance. The how we should approach North Korea is there, but the what is missing. And this is what is maddening- Kerry, Dean- hell 90% of the Democrats are pissing and moaning about the idiot Bush and how he is a Cowby and how the Jews are running everything and that if only a Democrat were in office this would not be happening (because, perhaps, we would be paying them off, as I noted before), but in reality, the solutions are always some variation of ‘I would not do what Bush is doing and if I were I would be doing it better and with more finesse.’ And that, folks, is not a platform.- it is the equivalent of putting make-up on a pig.
cj
Groan. This is why I cannot bear to read blogs such as the one referenced in this post.
I commend your ability to pursue a critique.
I usually just shake my head in recognition that there exists those with *an utter lack* of logical reasoning or analytical ability. Not to mention an ability to use so many words to say *absolutely nothing*.
I bet he made straight A’s in school.
Oliver
For months now, people (like yourself, John) have attacked Dems for attacking Bush but not providing alternatives. Now that I’ve done that, I get hit. I don’t expect you to take my statements like you would a candidate’s policy statements, but still…
And I sure as heck never got straight A’s. Close a few times, though.
Matthew
Oliver, if a candidate issued that policy statement, I’d still ask what his policy was. Your bullet points on North Korea are platitudes about style masquerading as a solution. It’s almost . . . Schwarzeneggerian ;-)
John Cole
Oliver- they aren’t solutions, that is the point. They are merely stylistic approaches. or example, you suggest we ‘take North Korea’ seriously- which means, well, whatever. So once we take them seriously, then what do we do.
That is what we have been bashing people for months about. Bush and Co. have made plenty of bad decisions, and I will grant you that, but at least they provide actually policy positions. The left appears to carp and moan, and then say how they would do things differently, but they forget one important thing- they provide the how, but not the what. The what is kinda important.
Ricky
Don’t let ’em get you down, OW. Those solutions would get you 2nd runner up in any of the beauty pageants (dude, you forgot “world peace” and “feed the children”).
Note: that’s called humor, folks. :)
Ricky
Don’t let ’em get you down, OW. Those solutions would get you 2nd runner up in any of the beauty pageants (dude, you forgot “world peace” and “feed the children”).
Note: that’s called humor, folks. :)
Ricky
Sorry, clicked twice by mistake.
hln
Makeup on a pig! That, of course, begs the question: “WHY?”
Exactly, right?
And, be specific, please. Are we just trying to highlight the pig’s natural beauty, or are we trying to make the pig less…porcine.
A discussion for another day, I’d suppose.
hln
David Perron
Yeah, I’ve noticed that over in OW-land, it’s almost literally true that “no news is good news”, although the meaning of that has shifted substantially to put emphasis on “no“.
Robin Roberts
Indeed, Oliver, your “solutions” mimic those of the current batch of Democratic Presidential candidates in being without any real substance.
Oliver
I’m not getting you guys. I said what I would do – SPECIFICALLY – but it appears if I don’t say what you want to hear – it’s a platitude?
Dean
Oliver:
Went to your site, and read what you had on Korea. I figured John had only quoted a part of your answer, but I was wrong. That is your ENTIRE answer.
So what is your answer? There is NOTHING specific there. Yes, what you have is a platitude.
“Address the problem directly.” What does that mean? The Administration said, essentially, that we would not engage in purely bilateral talks w/ the NKs, that we would make no new concessions to them, that we would hold them to their prior commitments. How is this not addressing the problem directly?
Especially when it actually stuck to that position, so that we’ve now had multilateral talks, found out what we needed to know, and found out that they had no intention of holding to any of their prior commitments.
“appreciate the seriousness of what North Korea could do.”
I don’t think you’ll find anyone in the Administration, or who is familiar with the North Korean situation OUTSIDE the Administration, who does not appreciate the seriousness of what NK could do. The problem as always is figuring out what WE can do about it.
But beyond your two platitudes, there is NOTHING CONCRETE. What should we do about North Korea?
Some examples might be, in exchange for all their nuclear materials, reprocessing equipment, etc.:
–Give them $20 Billion dollars.
–Bomb the Yongbyon nuclear complex (if they don’t agree).
–Open diplomatic relations with NK.
–Give them $20B every year for N years.
–Blockade North Korea (if they don’t agree).
–Persuade the Chinese to shut down their links to NK (However, you might also want to list some suggestions on exactly how you’d do that.)
But, at least in the case of NK, you do nothing of the sort. You simply say “We should take them seriously.” Like I said, we already do.
But thanks for the tip.
David Perron
Ah, we should take them SERIOUSLY. Why didn’t I get that the FIRST time? Wow…it’s so simple. And it could save our asses. I think someone should sponsor a bill in Congress to the effect that from no on, we’ll take those North Koreans seriously. I’m sure that’ll change the nature of our dealings with them completely.
Sorry, I can’t pretend that’s anything resembling a course of action, Oliver. But I think it makes you a wonderful candidate for employement at the State Department.
David Perron
Jeez…ummm…”from now on” and “candidate for employment”.