Eight Reasons America Is On Edge

[Berkut]

They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.

Yeah, DG, the left never makes crazy talk. Gosh no.

[Fate]

They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.

Yeah, DG, the left never makes crazy talk. Gosh no.

How else do you explain it? These crackers love their government socialism except when it's a nigger at the helm. Then all of the sudden they become Goldwater racists reborn.

[DGuller]

They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.

Yeah, DG, the left never makes crazy talk. Gosh no.

Did I say "never"?  What's that fallacy called again?  I think I said "more widespread and intense", not "exclusive".

[Razgovory]

Just curious Hans I mean Berkut, what percentage of Americans do you think don't like black people?

[DGuller]

Well, lets see.

Plenty of nutbars on the left said Bush "stole" the election in Florida, right? And some not so nutbar, in fact?

And I don't recall any on the right claiming that Clinton, for example, did not actually win the election, even if they thought he was the anti-christ. Because there really weren't any grounds to make such a claim, silly or otherwise. Similarly nobody questioned Bush Sr. right to be president either, that I can recall - again, not really anything there to base it on.

So I think it is perfectly situational - if the circumstance presents itself, the nutjobs on either side will find some excuse for claiming the other guy is not legit. And the side in power will then pretend like the nutbars on the other side actually represent the bulk of the other party, and we will hear more about them than their marginal representation actually warrants. Which I actually think is the more odious tactic, since it comes from (presumably) the non-crazy elements who should know better.

So no - I don't think my "middle of the road" approach is at all misplaced. I don't even think it is a "middle of the road" approach to begin with - just recognizing that there isn't anything inherently "special" about the right that makes them more prone to the Crazies or anything special about the left that makes them less prone.

The data suggests in fact that it is perfectly consistent, and simple common sense would lead one to think that crazy is pretty well spread out over the political spectrum.

Nobody questioned that Clinton won the elections.  However, some questioned whether he was a murderer, for example.  Then, later on, they just tried to remove him directly.

[Valmy]

Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.

Heck Clinton triangulated the fuck out of Democratic Party principals but it made no difference to that part of the electorate.  There is nothing a Democrat can do to make those people not go apeshit, their hysteria is not based on facts.  Just like Bush could have declared 'Karl Marx Day' and the wacky left was still going to hate him.

[Ed Anger]

This thread is an example of why we can't have nice things.

[Razgovory]

Curious thing is, Berkut really enjoyed banging the race drum back in 2008.  He love to quote Rev. Write.  GOD DAMN AMERICA!  I asked him on this board if he thought Obama was a racist and he said he didn't know.  But that didn't stop him from bring up the Rev Write thing every chance he got.

[Fate]

Just curious Hans I mean Berkut, what percentage of Americans do you think don't like black people?

It's only that one county in Mississippi that's refusing to integrate 56 years after Brown v Board. I don't think there is evidence of any other Republican racists in the country.

[Razgovory]

Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.

Heck Clinton triangulated the fuck out of Democratic Party principals but it made no difference to that part of the electorate.  There is nothing a Democrat can do to make those people not go apeshit, their hysteria is not based on facts.  Just like Bush could have declared 'Karl Marx Day' and the wacky left was still going to hate him.

Was there wide spread national protests to George Bush in his first year in office?

[Berkut]

Well, lets see.

Plenty of nutbars on the left said Bush "stole" the election in Florida, right? And some not so nutbar, in fact?

And I don't recall any on the right claiming that Clinton, for example, did not actually win the election, even if they thought he was the anti-christ. Because there really weren't any grounds to make such a claim, silly or otherwise. Similarly nobody questioned Bush Sr. right to be president either, that I can recall - again, not really anything there to base it on.

So I think it is perfectly situational - if the circumstance presents itself, the nutjobs on either side will find some excuse for claiming the other guy is not legit. And the side in power will then pretend like the nutbars on the other side actually represent the bulk of the other party, and we will hear more about them than their marginal representation actually warrants. Which I actually think is the more odious tactic, since it comes from (presumably) the non-crazy elements who should know better.

So no - I don't think my "middle of the road" approach is at all misplaced. I don't even think it is a "middle of the road" approach to begin with - just recognizing that there isn't anything inherently "special" about the right that makes them more prone to the Crazies or anything special about the left that makes them less prone.

The data suggests in fact that it is perfectly consistent, and simple common sense would lead one to think that crazy is pretty well spread out over the political spectrum.

Nobody questioned that Clinton won the elections.  However, some questioned whether he was a murderer, for example.  Then, later on, they just tried to remove him directly.

But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about whether the president is legitimate. Of course they tried to remove him - but that isn't the point. You can't bring that up to support your claim that one side questions the legitimacy more than another.

And plenty of the left questioned whether Bush was a murderer. Or war criminal. And plenty on the left asked that he be impeached. So what?

Hell, we even had examples of people here on Languish try to accuse his freaking wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teen.

Sorry, but I think your claim that the right is especially apt to this is rather stunningly poorly evidenced. The only thing your argument is showing is that you are not very good at not falling into the same party straighjackets you are accusing the loony right of being constrained by.

And like I said, the fact that the supposedly non-loony party elements invariably play up the crazies on the other side is much more odious than the marginal crazies are anyway.

Certainly both sides let their crazies dominate that much more when the other party is in power though - just look at Michael Moore and the Moveon nuts, that are now pretty much ignored since the moderate Dems are calling the shots. It is the exact same thing - now the Republicans are out of power, so their nutbars are that much more vocal, and the Dems are playing them up the same way the Republicans played up Moveon and their whackjobs.

[DGuller]

Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.

Heck Clinton triangulated the fuck out of Democratic Party principals but it made no difference to that part of the electorate.  There is nothing a Democrat can do to make those people not go apeshit, their hysteria is not based on facts.  Just like Bush could have declared 'Karl Marx Day' and the wacky left was still going to hate him.

Was there wide spread national protests to George Bush in his first year in office?

To be fair, we have no way of knowing that.  In a lot of ways, 9/11 short-circuited a lot of political processes.

[Valmy]

Yeah, Berkut's right. The hardcore conservative types had every bit as much irrational hatred for Clinton as they do for Hussein.

Yep.  This is about partisanship and the idiocy that comes with it.

I do sorta love how the morons and the idiots always get names like 'hardcore' and 'fundamentalist' and such that bizarrely suggests the lowest common denominator are somehow the truest of the true and real representatives of whatever group they embarrass by being a part of. 

[DGuller]

But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about whether the president is legitimate. Of course they tried to remove him - but that isn't the point. You can't bring that up to support your claim that one side questions the legitimacy more than another.

You're defining legitimacy far too narrowly.  Claiming that someone is a murderer is an attack on someone's legitimacy.  Obviously a murderer can't be a US president.  Claiming that someone is trying to dismantle the country is also an attack on legitimacy.  Obviously someone who tries to destroy US can't be a US president.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah, Berkut's right. The hardcore conservative types had every bit as much irrational hatred for Clinton as they do for Hussein.

Yep.  This is about partisanship and the idiocy that comes with it.

I do sorta love how the morons and the idiots always get names like 'hardcore' and 'fundamentalist' and such that bizarrely suggests the lowest common denominator are somehow the truest of the true and real representatives of whatever group they embarrass by being a part of.

But partisanship is good for us! The Atlantic says so!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/04/the-case-for-partisanship/6700/