Very smart guy,
Nixonland was one of the best books I read last year.
QuoteIn America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
Birthers, Town Hall Hecklers and the Return of Right-Wing Rage
By Rick Perlstein
Sunday, August 16, 2009
In Pennsylvania last week, a citizen, burly, crew-cut and trembling with rage, went nose to nose with his baffled senator: "One day God's going to stand before you, and he's going to judge you and the rest of your damned cronies up on the Hill. And then you will get your just deserts." He was accusing Arlen Specter of being too kind to President Obama's proposals to make it easier for people to get health insurance.
In Michigan, meanwhile, the indelible image was of the father who wheeled his handicapped adult son up to Rep. John Dingell and bellowed that "under the Obama health-care plan, which you support, this man would be given no care whatsoever." He pressed his case further on Fox News.
In New Hampshire, outside a building where Obama spoke, cameras trained on the pistol strapped to the leg of libertarian William Kostric. He then explained on CNN why the "tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots."
It was interesting to hear a BBC reporter on the radio trying to make sense of it all. He quoted a spokesman for the conservative Americans for Tax Reform: "Either this is a genuine grass-roots response, or there's some secret evil conspirator living in a mountain somewhere orchestrating all this that I've never met." The spokesman was arguing, of course, that it was spontaneous, yet he also proudly owned up to how his group has helped the orchestration, through sample letters to the editor and "a little bit of an ability to put one-pagers together."
The BBC also quoted liberal Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's explanation: "They want to get a little clip on YouTube of an effort to disrupt a town meeting and to send the congressman running for his car. This is an organized effort . . . you can trace it back to the health insurance industry."
So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.
In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as "20 years of treason" and accused the men who led the fight against fascism of deliberately surrendering the free world to communism. Mainline Protestants published a new translation of the Bible in the 1950s that properly rendered the Greek as connoting a more ambiguous theological status for the Virgin Mary; right-wingers attributed that to, yes, the hand of Soviet agents. And Vice President Richard Nixon claimed that the new Republicans arriving in the White House "found in the files a blueprint for socializing America."
When John F. Kennedy entered the White House, his proposals to anchor America's nuclear defense in intercontinental ballistic missiles -- instead of long-range bombers -- and form closer ties with Eastern Bloc outliers such as Yugoslavia were taken as evidence that the young president was secretly disarming the United States. Thousands of delegates from 90 cities packed a National Indignation Convention in Dallas, a 1961 version of today's tea parties; a keynote speaker turned to the master of ceremonies after his introduction and remarked as the audience roared: "Tom Anderson here has turned moderate! All he wants to do is impeach [Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl] Warren. I'm for hanging him!"
Before the "black helicopters" of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a "civil rights movement" had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would "enslave" whites. And back before there were Bolsheviks to blame, paranoids didn't lack for subversives -- anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists even had their own powerful political party in the 1840s and '50s.
The instigation is always the familiar litany: expansion of the commonweal to empower new communities, accommodation to internationalism, the heightened influence of cosmopolitans and the persecution complex of conservatives who can't stand losing an argument. My personal favorite? The federal government expanded mental health services in the Kennedy era, and one bill provided for a new facility in Alaska. One of the most widely listened-to right-wing radio programs in the country, hosted by a former FBI agent, had millions of Americans believing it was being built to intern political dissidents, just like in the Soviet Union.
So, crazier then, or crazier now? Actually, the similarities across decades are uncanny. When Adlai Stevenson spoke at a 1963 United Nations Day observance in Dallas, the Indignation forces thronged the hall, sweating and furious, shrieking down the speaker for the television cameras. Then, when Stevenson was walked to his limousine, a grimacing and wild-eyed lady thwacked him with a picket sign. Stevenson was baffled. "What's the matter, madam?" he asked. "What can I do for you?" The woman responded with self-righteous fury: "Well, if you don't know I can't help you."
The various elements -- the liberal earnestly confused when rational dialogue won't hold sway; the anti-liberal rage at a world self-evidently out of joint; and, most of all, their mutual incomprehension -- sound as fresh as yesterday's news. (Internment camps for conservatives? That's the latest theory of tea party favorite Michael Savage.)
The orchestration of incivility happens, too, and it is evil. Liberal power of all sorts induces an organic and crazy-making panic in a considerable number of Americans, while people with no particular susceptibility to existential terror -- powerful elites -- find reason to stoke and exploit that fear. And even the most ideologically fair-minded national media will always be agents of cosmopolitanism: something provincials fear as an outside elite intent on forcing different values down their throats.
That provides an opening for vultures such as Richard Nixon, who, the Watergate investigation discovered, had his aides make sure that seed blossomed for his own purposes. "To the Editor . . . Who in the hell elected these people to stand up and read off their insults to the President of the United States?" read one proposed "grass-roots" letter manufactured by the White House. "When will you people realize that he was elected President and he is entitled to the respect of that office no matter what you people think of him?" went another.
Liberals are right to be vigilant about manufactured outrage, and particularly about how the mainstream media can too easily become that outrage's entry into the political debate. For the tactic represented by those fake Nixon letters was a long-term success. Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim. If 1963 were 2009, the woman who assaulted Adlai Stevenson would be getting time on cable news to explain herself. That, not the paranoia itself, makes our present moment uniquely disturbing.
It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.
The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."
Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites.
Link. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html)
Shamelessly lifted from The Economist. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/the_many_species_of_crazy_tree.cfm)
This is pretty over the top. Like the crazy damning the other crazy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2009, 01:04:48 AM
This is pretty over the top. Like the crazy damning the other crazy.
To be fair, in Nixonland he spends almost as much time talking about the retardation of the left as the retardation of the right. That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
That's because you think Bush = Hitler is reasonable political discourse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:27:14 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
That's because you think Bush = Hitler is reasonable political discourse.
Which of the following seems more "Nazi-Like" to you:
Locking up random people, having them tortured with no respect for rights, manipulating security concerns to tip elections and invading foreign countries for little-no reason
OR
Attempting to reform Health Care.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:32:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:27:14 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
That's because you think Bush = Hitler is reasonable political discourse.
Which of the following seems more "Nazi-Like" to you:
Locking up random people, having them tortured with no respect for rights, manipulating security concerns to tip elections and invading foreign countries for little-no reason
OR
Attempting to reform Health Care.
:rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:32:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:27:14 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
That's because you think Bush = Hitler is reasonable political discourse.
Which of the following seems more "Nazi-Like" to you:
Locking up random people, having them tortured with no respect for rights, manipulating security concerns to tip elections and invading foreign countries for little-no reason
OR
Attempting to reform Health Care.
:rolleyes:
What seems more "Nazi-like" to you:
Liberating Iraq and founding a Lighthouse of Democracy in the Middle East.
OR
Death panels for old jewish grandmas and denying health care to the mentally handicap based on their utility to society. And let's not forget about all that federal money going towards infanticide of minorities.
:rolleyes:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants... beware Liberals.
Quote from: Fate on August 21, 2009, 02:16:39 AM
What seems more "Nazi-like" to you:
Liberating Iraq and founding a Lighthouse of Democracy in the Middle East.
OR
Death panels for old jewish grandmas and denying health care to the mentally handicap based on their utility to society. And let's not forget about all that federal money going towards infanticide.
:rolleyes:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants... beware Liberals.
To the random Euro like me both statements equalise riefenstahl like propaganda :D
In the sense none of the statements really represents the truth... and both statements come form the same rightwing sentiment.. :p
V
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2009, 01:04:48 AM
This is pretty over the top. Like the crazy damning the other crazy.
To be fair, in Nixonland he spends almost as much time talking about the retardation of the left as the retardation of the right. That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
Yep.
We live in the age of the lunatic right.
This isn't so much because the left doesn't have its crazies too but in these post-soviet days the worst you get making any sort of real impact is the occasional over the top environmentalist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:27:14 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
That said, I think the retardation of the left in comparison to the retardation of the right has shrunk dramatically with the decline of the real Left in America.
That's because you think Bush = Hitler is reasonable political discourse.
I don't recall any posters here with avatars linking Bush and the GOP to Nazis. Not something I can say about Obama. Any criticism of Bush was just "Bush-Hitler". I suppose that was safer then actually looking at the criticism.
Oh and the article is wrong. The mental health thing happened in the 1950's.
I agree with everything except the parts about leftists being reasonable.
If I'm going to pick a nutty side, it is going to be the right. Nicer uniforms, torchlight rallies and ultraviolence.
the left? nagging.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 08:27:18 AM
If I'm going to pick a nutty side, it is going to be the right. Nicer uniforms, torchlight rallies and ultraviolence.
In the US it tends to be church ladies listening to talk radio and becoming outraged.
depressing article, as it suggests that public discourse is dead or dying.
on the bright side, languish can take pride is being ahead of the curve.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 21, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
depressing article, as it suggests that public discourse is dead or dying.
Well yes. To be fair public discourse has always been pretty weak over here.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:28:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 08:27:18 AM
If I'm going to pick a nutty side, it is going to be the right. Nicer uniforms, torchlight rallies and ultraviolence.
In the US it tends to be church ladies listening to talk radio and becoming outraged.
I'd rather listen to that. Seriously.
I've had my fill of leftist tripe. Being in the same county as Antioch College/Yellow Springs is painful.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
I've had my fill of leftist tripe. Being in the same county as Antioch College/Yellow Springs is painful.
You are only saying that because of the pain of 8 years of Bushitler crap. The right wing douchebags have only begun to piss us off with their bullshit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 08:27:18 AM
If I'm going to pick a nutty side, it is going to be the right. Nicer uniforms, torchlight rallies and ultraviolence.
the left? nagging.
You don't want to hang out with those neo-confederates.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:36:35 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
I've had my fill of leftist tripe. Being in the same county as Antioch College/Yellow Springs is painful.
You are only saying that because of the pain of 8 years of Bushitler crap. The right wing douchebags have only begun to piss us off with their bullshit.
Oh no. I've had 30+ years of exposure to leftist bullshit out of Antioch. No tea party nutjob will ever wash that away.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 21, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
depressing article, as it suggests that public discourse is dead or dying.
on the bright side, languish can take pride is being ahead of the curve.
We've got massive social disconnects, gaps in education, and a ton of xenophobes and megalomaniacs- public discourse doesn't stand a chance in the US. :(
I thought the article was pretty good as far as it goes, but completely leaves out the moveonistas and Cindy Sheehans which were utterly relevant to the topic.
B-
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
but completely leaves out the moveonistas and Cindy Sheehans which were utterly relevant to the topic.
Yep it is a very selective cataloging of the crazy.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2009, 01:32:30 AM
Which of the following seems more "Nazi-Like" to you:
Locking up random people, having them tortured with no respect for rights, manipulating security concerns to tip elections and invading foreign countries for little-no reason
OR
Attempting to reform Health Care.
:rolleyes:
The former. :smartie:
But we're left with the fact that your defense of Bush=Hitler is that Bush is more Hitler-like than Obama. A lot of people are more Hitler-like than Obama.
As an outside observer I suspect that the right-wing crazy has more depth and traction to it than the left-wing crazy because it is in large part a massive expression of frustration. The whole Western world is if you like moving "leftwards" on certain issues - the demise of organized religion as a force to be taken seriously, the rise of certain socialist policies such as healthcare, gay marriage and the like. The radical right sees all of this as a fundamental threat to its very existence, and reacts with anger, which expresses itself in a willingness to swallow all sorts of conspiracy theory type nonsense as a way of channeling this unfocussed anger onto easy to understand symbolic targets.
A similar phenominon, ironically enough, as one sees in the Muslim world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 09:34:07 AM
But we're left with the fact that your defense of Bush=Hitler is that Bush is more Hitler-like than Obama. A lot of people are more Hitler-like than Obama.
But the thing is this has happened so quickly. It's been six months.
As I've said elsewhere in August 2001 Bush wasn't popular with the left because of the missile defence and Kyoto, but he wasn't a hit with the right despite the tax cut because they thought he was a bit weak in his dealings with China (and the spy plane stuff) and NCLB was far weaker than he or they had wanted. Bushitler stuff didn't start until, at the earliest 2002, and didn't really kick off until the Iraq war.
Now Obama's done more in a short space of time but he's already getting the Nazi comparisons.
I think one of the differences between left-wing crazy and right-wing crazy is that the right seem to have gone crazy almost instantaneously. It's the speed that really confuses me.
Edit: This is just general crazy. Apparently there's a poll in which 39% of Americans think the government should 'stay out of Medicare' :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 09:47:47 AM
Edit: This is just general crazy. Apparently there's a poll in which 39% of Americans think the government should 'stay out of Medicare' :blink:
That means they want Medicare left alone. At least I hope it does.
Speaking of left wing 'tards, who is that 'Ed Show' fuck at MSNBC? Watching that fucker makes me want to vote for Hitler.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 09:47:47 AM
Bushitler stuff didn't start until, at the earliest 2002, and didn't really kick off until the Iraq war.
Bushitler maybe didn't start till then but Bush stole the election started right away.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 09:47:47 AM
Edit: This is just general crazy. Apparently there's a poll in which 39% of Americans think the government should 'stay out of Medicare' :blink:
That means they want Medicare left alone. At least I hope it does.
I think that could be how it could be interpreted but I'm not sure:
Quote85% of Democrats, 48% of independents, and 16% of Republicans give Obama good
reviews. All but 4% of respondents who said they voted for him last fall think he's doing
a good job, while just 10% of McCain supporters give him good marks.
Obama's improvement isn't a reflection of support for his health care plan though. 47%
of voters say they oppose it with just 40% in favor. One poll question indicative of how
difficult it is to gain public understanding on a complicated issue asked if respondents
thought the government should 'stay out of Medicare,' something inherently impossible.
39% said yes.
The question does seem ambiguous, though:
QuoteDo you think the government should stay out of
Medicare?
My favourite result is this one though:
QuoteDo you consider Hawaii to be part of the United
States? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If
you're not sure, press 3.
Yes ................................................................. 90%
No ................................................................... 6%
Not Sure.......................................................... 4%
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 09:59:48 AM
Bushitler maybe didn't start till then but Bush stole the election started right away.
That's true. But I also think it's a few steps from that to accusations of Nazism and people carrying guns and 'kill Bush/Obama' signs, or talking about watering the liberty tree.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
My favourite result is this one though:
QuoteDo you consider Hawaii to be part of the United
States? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If
you're not sure, press 3.
Yes ................................................................. 90%
No ................................................................... 6%
Not Sure.......................................................... 4%
:lol:
It'll be a cold day in hell before I recognize Missorah!
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:03:46 AM
That's true. But I also think it's a few steps from that to accusations of Nazism and people carrying guns and 'kill Bush/Obama' signs, or talking about watering the liberty tree.
Sure. And 40 million people talking about stealing an election is several orders of magnitude removed from 12 people with Obama Nazi posters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 10:11:24 AM
Sure. And 40 million people talking about stealing an election is several orders of magnitude removed from 12 people with Obama Nazi posters.
Where are you getting 40 million from.
Anyway the 'stole the election' meme has some connection to reality it was the most contested election in history. I think it covers a variety of options from crazy (Bush literally corrupted a US Federal election and actually stole it) to the respectable, if I disagree with them (Bush unfairly came into office) to something relatively assinine (Bush came to power in a result that's contested).
It's like what you pointed out with the 'Bush knew about 9/11' question. It isn't that useful because it covers everyone from the 'Bush did it' truthers to people who think they read somewhere that the CIA warned Bush about a forthcoming attack.
So do I think 40 million people thought Bush full on stole the election? No. I'm also not convinced that there were even 12 people making Nazi analogies or carrying the gun to the President's public appearances.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 09:59:03 AM
Speaking of left wing 'tards, who is that 'Ed Show' fuck at MSNBC? Watching that fucker makes me want to vote for Hitler.
Intelligent people should not watch MSNBC. You get stupider just having it watched somewhere in your neighborhood.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:19:24 AM
Where are you getting 40 million from.
I made it up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 10:11:24 AM
Sure. And 40 million people talking about stealing an election is several orders of magnitude removed from 12 people with Obama Nazi posters.
Wow nice attempt at minimizing. The Republican Vice Presidential candidate was out there babbing about insane conspiracy theories.
Just because there are nutty leftists doesn't mean stupid shit isn't being spewed from the mouths of people on the right.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 10:23:43 AM
Wow nice attempt at minimizing. The Republican Vice Presidential candidate was out there babbing about insane conspiracy theories.
Just because there are nutty leftists doesn't mean stupid shit isn't being spewed from the mouths of people on the right.
Fair point.
However, as a minor digression I think to call the death panel opponents conspiracy theorists is somewhat inaccurate. Conspiracies are secret. AFAIK no one has suggested that Obama has a secret, unstated agenda to pull the plug on grandpa. They just have it wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
I made it up.
I've done some looking and around 59% of Americans and 50% of Democrats approved of the Supreme Court's handling of the 2000 election apparently. Now that's an issue of opinion on which a number of views are entirely respectable.
On the subject of Barack Obama's birthplace, which is an issue of fact, only 62% of Americans and 36% of Republicans think he was born in the US.
Both those issues are, fundamentally, to do with the legitimacy of the President. So I think some comparison can be useful.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
However, as a minor digression I think to call the death panel opponents conspiracy theorists is somewhat inaccurate. Conspiracies are secret. AFAIK no one has suggested that Obama has a secret, unstated agenda to pull the plug on grandpa. They just have it wrong.
Yeah, it's untrue. The problem I have is that Republican politicians, who surely must be aware that there's no truth to this seem willing to encourage talk about it and fears of it so that they can gee up opposition. I think it's despicable.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 08:36:35 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
I've had my fill of leftist tripe. Being in the same county as Antioch College/Yellow Springs is painful.
You are only saying that because of the pain of 8 years of Bushitler crap. The right wing douchebags have only begun to piss us off with their bullshit.
This. +1.
This is much ado about very little.
Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.
It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.
Well I hope you are right on that one.
QuoteIt is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.
Well maybe the right should get their party leaders to stop saying insane shit then eh? Probably a good start if you do not want insane shit to define you.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.
Yeah, but Moveon.org is nowhere near as crazy. I mean the most offensive thing I can think of is the General Betray Us ad. When a political movements most distasteful moment is a pun I don't think they're that concerning.
Right now you have people worried that the opposite side want to mandatory euthanasia - and they are being encouraged in that belief by the people who should be the grown-ups, the party leadership. By contrast I can't think of any Democrat who didn't condemn the Betray Us advert.
And that's ignoring the gun and 'kill Obama' sign carrying liberty tree nuts and the birthers. Both of whom have, of course, been disowned by most of the mainstream right which is entirely right.
Edit: Incidentally I think the reaction by the right to the shouting and anger shows how cynical the 'death panel' thing is. I think the number of people who would support mandatory euthanasia is small. I think if you really believed it was truly in this bill then you wouldn't worry about the optics of shouting people down, or civil disobedience. This would be a moral crusade, and rightly so.
The actual behaviour of Republican leaders seems to suggest that they know it's not true and they're just using it as a tactical ploy to stop the bill from passing. But that hasn't stopped them playing up the fears.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:37:22 AM
Yeah, it's untrue. The problem I have is that Republican politicians, who surely must be aware that there's no truth to this seem willing to encourage talk about it and fears of it so that they can gee up opposition. I think it's despicable.
To be fair, in that long list of quotes you provided earlier it wasn't clear whether the speakers were ginning up death panel fears or responding to requests for comments on the death panel phenomenon. Except for Caribou Barbie.
Now Obama *could* take the tack of admitting that he raised a related issue previously, but it has since been dropped and guarantee that it won't be in any final bill, but he has opted for the easier path of telling people not to believe all those nasty lies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
My favourite result is this one though:
QuoteDo you consider Hawaii to be part of the United
States? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If
you're not sure, press 3.
Yes ................................................................. 90%
No ................................................................... 6%
Not Sure.......................................................... 4%
:lol:
You never know, those could be some of those hardcore Hawaiian supremacists/secessionists. :lol:
You know who you are. Yeah, I'm gonna razorblade those sea turtle and flower petal bumper stickers off your car you polynesianazi. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 11:20:24 AM
To be fair, in that long list of quotes you provided earlier it wasn't clear whether the speakers were ginning up death panel fears or responding to requests for comments on the death panel phenomenon. Except for Caribou Barbie.
You're right. But surely the responsible thing to do in response to any question about it would be to say something like: 'there's no death panel in any version of this bill and if anything like that comes near it I'll oppose it absolute. Here are some real reasons to oppose this bill and this process...'
QuoteNow Obama *could* take the tack of admitting that he raised a related issue previously, but it has since been dropped and guarantee that it won't be in any final bill, but he has opted for the easier path of telling people not to believe all those nasty lies.
My understanding is that the death panel stuff came from a reading, by Betsy McCaughey (I think), of the House Bill. Not in response to anything Obama's said. It has been dropped, no-one is supporting it any more.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 11:26:27 AM
You're right. But surely the responsible thing to do in response to any question about it would be to say something like: 'there's no death panel in any version of this bill and if anything like that comes near it I'll oppose it absolute. Here are some real reasons to oppose this bill and this process...'
First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it. I don't remember Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of no blood for oil.
Second, a GOP promise to oppose such and such provision is completely irrelevant. You've already posted several articles to this effect. The legislative fight is between Blue Dogs and progressives.
QuoteMy understanding is that the death panel stuff came from a reading, by Betsy McCaughey (I think), of the House Bill. Not in response to anything Obama's said. It has been dropped, no-one is supporting it any more.
That's great. I promise to not attend any town hall meetings with Obama the Nazi posters. Now either you can convince all the death panelists or Obama can try.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 11:14:42 AM
Yeah, but Moveon.org is nowhere near as crazy. I mean the most offensive thing I can think of is the General Betray Us ad. When a political movements most distasteful moment is a pun I don't think they're that concerning.
I have to admit I do not read or have much to do with moveon.org.
But the insanity the talking heads on MSNBC spew is good enough for me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 11:33:33 AM
First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.
Yeah for all his electioneering skill he is rather impotent in getting legislation passed. But then he was hardly a big wheel in the Senate IIRC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 11:33:33 AM
First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it. I don't remember Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of no blood for oil.
She voted for the war so I think she made a few.
I agree it's his job to sell it, but surely it's every politician's job to fight bullshit.
QuoteSecond, a GOP promise to oppose such and such provision is completely irrelevant. You've already posted several articles to this effect. The legislative fight is between Blue Dogs and progressives.
That's not entirely right. There are two big negotiations. The Blue Dogs and the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, which look like passing a considerably more conservative bill (though still to the left of Obama's campaign plan). Though maybe not given Grassley's latest statements.
At the same time there's a legislative battle between Blue Dogs and progressives, in which the White House is generally seen as being on the side of the moderates.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
This is much ado about very little.
Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.
It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.
What about all this extremist rightwing pundits? They seems pretty popular
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 11:43:26 AM
She voted for the war so I think she made a few.
The vote was like 98-2. That's hardly proof.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 11:35:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 11:33:33 AM
First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.
Yeah for all his electioneering skill he is rather impotent in getting legislation passed. But then he was hardly a big wheel in the Senate IIRC.
With hindsight this seems obvious. Obama was a one term Senator who began his run for president two years into his term. He didn't have time to make connections or gain experience; he simply couldn't be Lyndon Johnson. While he was running, though, he had such an extraordinary ability to unite the party that I thought he would be able to line up votes in Congress. Carter was the same way; an incredible speaker, but had difficulty dealing with Congress.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 21, 2009, 12:34:10 PM
Carter was the same way; an incredible speaker, but had difficulty dealing with Congress.
Well, Carter had that whole "attack of the killer rabbit" thing to live down as well...
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
Well maybe the right should get their party leaders to stop saying insane shit then eh? Probably a good start if you do not want insane shit to define you.
It won't matter though, since right party leaders NOT saying insane shit isn't newsworthy, and won't be reported.
Quote from: Sahib on August 21, 2009, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
This is much ado about very little.
Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.
It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.
What about all this extremist rightwing pundits? They seems pretty popular
Are they though? They are popular with other nutjobs sure, but then, the leftwing pundits are rather popular with the leftwing nutjobs as well. So what?
This idea that the left is defined by their nuttiest members and the right by THEIR nuttiest members does rational discourse no good. The problem is that even the reasonable members *insist* that the other sides nutbars are the real representatives, because it is so much easier arguing with the loonies.
So people like Shelf make a big deal about the liberty tree whackjobs, even though they really do know that they are just the fringe.
I actually think that the left has a much larger percentage of their support base inclined to believing ridiculous crap than the right - but the rights nutbar group is willing to believe a LOT nuttier things. But both of them are more driven by what they want to be true about the "enemy" than what is actually true.
I've said several times that right wing fruitloops are fruitier but left wing nutbars are more numerous.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:23:40 PM
I've said several times that right wing fruitloops are fruitier but left wing nutbars are more numerous.
:yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
However, as a minor digression I think to call the death panel opponents conspiracy theorists is somewhat inaccurate. Conspiracies are secret. AFAIK no one has suggested that Obama has a secret, unstated agenda to pull the plug on grandpa. They just have it wrong.
No, alot of them have been talking about how this is what Obama secretly wants even if they can't find it in the bill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 11:33:33 AM
First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it. I don't remember Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of no blood for oil.
So the responsibility to stop scurrilous claims is on the the defender not the attacker?
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 01:11:19 PM
It won't matter though, since right party leaders NOT saying insane shit isn't newsworthy, and won't be reported.
Good point, good point.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 01:11:19 PM
It won't matter though, since right party leaders NOT saying insane shit isn't newsworthy, and won't be reported.
Good point, good point.
Not really. It's more of the blame the MSM stuff.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 01:11:19 PM
It won't matter though, since right party leaders NOT saying insane shit isn't newsworthy, and won't be reported.
Good point, good point.
Kind of like more moderate types of all colors...
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 01:47:20 PM
So the responsibility to stop scurrilous claims is on the the defender not the attacker?
Who are you calling an attacker? Hillary?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 01:47:20 PM
So the responsibility to stop scurrilous claims is on the the defender not the attacker?
Who are you calling an attacker? Hillary?
The GOP nuts.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:00:56 PM
The GOP nuts.
Ah.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that Shelf and I were having a discussion about the responsibility of GOP politicians who are not attackers. Ergo, your inference does not follow from my statments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 12:29:54 PM
The vote was like 98-2. That's hardly proof.
Okay but you asked for Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of 'no blood for oil'. Surely the correct analogy would be Hillary or any other senior Democrat politician being asked about 'no blood for oil' or what have you and saying 'well actually we should be concerned that this might have been a war for oil/Halliburton/whatever'. I think with this death panel stuff you have senior Republicans indulging in and seeming to support the right-wing equivalent of Denis Kucinich madness.
QuoteIt won't matter though, since right party leaders NOT saying insane shit isn't newsworthy, and won't be reported.
I think senior Republicans denouncing the 'death panel' stuff would make the news precisely because it would be contradicting other senior figures in their party (Palin, Steele, Gingrich, Grassley and so on) who have said there's something to it.
QuoteSo people like Shelf make a big deal about the liberty tree whackjobs, even though they really do know that they are just the fringe.
I've not said the liberty tree, gun carrying 'kill Obama' are anything but a fringe.
QuoteI've said several times that right wing fruitloops are fruitier but left wing nutbars are more numerous.
I'm not so sure. A plurality of self-identified Republicans (44%) say they don't know that Obama was born in the US; this is after the birthers were widely mocked, by both right and left.
I believe about 45% of Republicans believe that the bill being discussed has death panels that basically means mandatory government-run euthanasia. That the Republican leadership is either encouraging this nonsense about death panels (Palin), or pandering to it (Grassley) indicates that it's a significant enough part of their party that they want on-side.
As I say I can't remember any senior Democrat doing the same with the extremes of the left.
Now that isn't to say that there isn't a sane conservatism, or even that it doesn't form the majority of the right (though at this point it looks like a silent majority) but I think for that to change that sane, policy, reality-based conservatism needs to come out and condemn the insane stuff. I think the National Review has started and that's good, but senior intelligent figures like Grassley and Gingrich should do the same.
I think this William Buckley article sums up my opinion:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/goldwater--the-john-birch-society--and-me-11248
QuoteMoving on, Baroody brought up the John Birch Society. It was quickly obvious that this was the subject Goldwater wished counsel on.
Kirk, unimpeded by his little professorial stutter, greeted the subject with fervor. It was his opinion, he said emphatically, that Robert Welch was a man disconnected from reality. How could anyone reason, as Welch had done in The Politician, that President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists? This mischievous unreality was a great weight on the back of responsible conservative political thinking. The John Birch Society should be renounced by Goldwater and by everyone else—Kirk turned his eyes on me—with any influence on the conservative movement.
QuoteHow can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own.
I have seen a great deal of criticism of the birthers coming from prominent people on the right. It's fair to acknowledge that at least.
Shelf:
If you can dig up a quote or two on Democrats calling blood for oil nonsense I'll be convinced. As a matter of fact I do have vague recollections of Democrats making comments about Cheney going to war to make his Haliburton buddies happy.
On health care the right is far, far nuttier. But you're leaving out things like globalization protestors, environuts, impeach Bushers, Rev. Wright America God Damners, Chomskyites, Naiderite corporation lynchers, Israel haters, etc. etc. etc.
p.s. Grassley is not intelligent.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2009, 02:17:12 PM
I have seen a great deal of criticism of the birthers coming from prominent people on the right. It's fair to acknowledge that at least.
I do. I say they've been widely mocked by right and left, though there was some initial equivocation by some Republican congressmen who initially said they 'didn't know' whether Obama was born in this country. But overwhelmingly cultural figures on the right, like Bill O'Reilly (who is, far and away, my favourite Fox commentator) and Republican politicians have denounced and criticised them, which is right. I think derision's what they deserve.
Quote(who is, far and away, my favourite Fox commentator)
Next, you'll say Keith Olbermann is witty and intelligent. :cry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 02:24:38 PM
If you can dig up a quote or two on Democrats calling blood for oil nonsense I'll be convinced. As a matter of fact I do have vague recollections of Democrats making comments about Cheney going to war to make his Haliburton buddies happy.
I'll look around.
QuoteOn health care the right is far, far nuttier. But you're leaving out things like globalization protestors, environuts, impeach Bushers, Rev. Wright America God Damners, Chomskyites, Naiderite corporation lynchers, Israel haters, etc. etc. etc.
There is one difference with the corporation lynchers/environuts/globalisation/Israel haters and so on. I think they're a permanent presence because they're largely single-issue guys associated with single issue movements, like PETA which is a nutty that's different from general left-wing nutty. So I think they're more analogous to the immigration nuts and Pat Buchanites on the right.
But you're right my concern with the right-wing nuttiness is based on a few things. It's quicker than anything on the left with Bush. The fringe seems more intense ('kill Obama', the 'liberty tree'). I'm not convinced that nuttiness ('death panels', birthers) is any smaller than the left nuttiness. Finally that it (the 'death panel' nuttiness) is being used by the mainstream, the party/movement 'elite' quite cynically.
Quotep.s. Grassley is not intelligent.
Noted.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 02:27:24 PM
Quote(who is, far and away, my favourite Fox commentator)
Next, you'll say Keith Olbermann is witty and intelligent. :cry:
Dude, he's being compared with the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 02:27:24 PM
Quote(who is, far and away, my favourite Fox commentator)
Next, you'll say Keith Olbermann is witty and intelligent. :cry:
:bleeding:
In terms of butch liberals I prefer Rachel Maddow.
To be fair the only ones I've seen are Beck and Hannity. Beck strikes me as just disturbed. I think he should be in a hospital somewhere. I've seen the man cry on national (and international TV). Hannity is just a whiny bitch.
O'Reilly's the only one I watch with any regularity though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
:bleeding:
In terms of butch liberals I prefer Rachel Maddow.
Thundering indignation vs. smirking contempt. Its a tough call.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
:bleeding:
In terms of butch liberals I prefer Rachel Maddow.
Thundering indignation vs. smirking contempt. Its a tough call.
Smirking contempt every time. It's a British prerogative.
I'll search for those quotes tomorrow. I'm going to watch an episode of Wallander now :w00t:
Such people tend to be louder and more obnoxious, sucking up all the air so that rational people get less attention. That distorts the overall conversation and makes it seem like they represent a larger faction than they do. If you ever attend any political events where a crowd gathers, the news people will ALWAYS gravitate to the kookiest and most flamboyant psycho in the crowd and report what that person says. Then everyone gets the impression that they speak for the crowd or their views represent those of the crowd. I am extremely skeptical that these health care crowds are primarily composed of death panel people. I just don't believe that. Any more than I think Code Pink represents the views of large swaths of Democrats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 02:24:38 PM
On health care the right is far, far nuttier. But you're leaving out things like globalization protestors, environuts, impeach Bushers, Rev. Wright America God Damners, Chomskyites, Naiderite corporation lynchers, Israel haters, etc. etc. etc.
p.s. Grassley is not intelligent.
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Pat Buchanan and that retard on CNN vs. a billion giant puppet makers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Pat Buchanan and that retard on CNN vs. a billion giant puppet makers.
A Billion? I remember a reported noticing that alot of people at those Anti-world bank rallies were right wingers who hated the idea that aid might be given to furreners.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Don't confuse populists with right-wingers.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2009, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Don't confuse populists with right-wingers.
:yes:
Populism comes in both left and right-wing flavors. While not all populists are right-wing, there has always been a sizeable contingent of right-wing populists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 02:56:41 PM
Pat Buchanan and that retard on CNN vs. a billion giant puppet makers.
Ah those crazy giant puppets of Bushitler
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2009, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Don't confuse populists with right-wingers.
You do know that there are right wing populists. You wanna hear some right wing populist phrases? "Limousine liberals" and "Liberal Media elites"
Quote from: citizen k on August 21, 2009, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2009, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Don't confuse populists with right-wingers.
:yes:
I think you're mixing up right-wing groups though. I'd say Sarah Palin and Huckabee are right-wing populists, while the anti-Israel, anti-globalisation right is, I believe paleo-con. A la Pat Buchanan and so on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2009, 12:58:00 AM
Quote from: citizen k on August 21, 2009, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2009, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Globalization and Israel aren't the sole territory of the Left. Quite a few of those were far righters.
Don't confuse populists with right-wingers.
Pretty much any politician who gets elected is a populist. They almost always portray themselves as the champions of the average man against the elites.
:yes:
I think you're mixing up right-wing groups though. I'd say Sarah Palin and Huckabee are right-wing populists, while the anti-Israel, anti-globalisation right is, I believe paleo-con. A la Pat Buchanan and so on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2009, 12:58:00 AM
I think you're mixing up right-wing groups though. I'd say Sarah Palin and Huckabee are right-wing populists, while the anti-Israel, anti-globalisation right is, I believe paleo-con. A la Pat Buchanan and so on.
[/quote]
Off topic, but Sheilbh, how/why do you know so much about American politics? Just curious, as you seem to command political minutia far more than I do, and I'm a native. :huh:
Quote from: saskganesh on August 21, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
depressing article, as it suggests that public discourse is dead or dying.
on the bright side, languish can take pride is being ahead of the curve.
:)
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.
I'd suggest that the absence of anything remotely similar to our concept of "left" colours our perception quite a bit. The Dems would be considered a right-wing party in any European country.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 22, 2009, 02:22:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.
I'd suggest that the absence of anything remotely similar to our concept of "left" colours our perception quite a bit. The Dems would be considered a right-wing party in any European country.
The Democrats quite certainly have a left. It's merely part of a coalition of elected officials that spans from self identified socialists like Bernie Sanders to conservatives like Ben Nelson. I'd guess that the left of the Democratic party barely constitutes a plurality.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 22, 2009, 01:09:22 AM
Off topic, but Sheilbh, how/why do you know so much about American politics? Just curious, as you seem to command political minutia far more than I do, and I'm a native. :huh:
It seems to be a hobby with him- American politics isn't the only form where he tends to be unusually insightful. There's still remnants of wanting to pursue a poli. sci. degree with me, so I tend to devour his posts, so that I can check up on his sources. :blush:
Quote from: Queequeg on August 22, 2009, 01:09:22 AM
Off topic, but Sheilbh, how/why do you know so much about American politics? Just curious, as you seem to command political minutia far more than I do, and I'm a native. :huh:
It interests me. From my perspective it's like everything else about America strangely familiar and yet totally different. When I'm interested in something I tend to end up reading a lot about it.
My interest goes in cycles though. The amount of attention I give American politics tends to decline if something, anything happens in this country. But we're in the long summer recess here and the even longer Brown dribble to 2010 :(
Plus from an arguing perspective Americans are more contentious.
Languishite Brits disagree about the details but are united by a sort of gallows-humour view of our politics; they're a stale sitcom covering up an actually deeply worrying situation and there's nothing we can do but shrug and laugh.
Incidentally, speaking of crazy I always like the groups who really double down on their crazy. The 10% who either refuse to recognise or don't know whether Hawaii is in the US or not.
In a similar vein I've nothing but love for the 16% of birthers who approve of Obama so far :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 02:51:47 AM
Incidentally, speaking of crazy I always like the groups who really double down on their crazy. The 10% who either refuse to recognise or don't know whether Hawaii is in the US or not.
Most of them are probably just dumb.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 23, 2009, 03:14:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 02:51:47 AM
Incidentally, speaking of crazy I always like the groups who really double down on their crazy. The 10% who either refuse to recognise or don't know whether Hawaii is in the US or not.
Most of them are probably just dumb.
I wondered if maybe they were just elderly. People who still aren't sure whether or not Arizona's a state or the Grandpa Simpson brigade.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 02:51:47 AM
In a similar vein I've nothing but love for the 16% of birthers who approve of Obama so far :lol:
I do love this as well - "Despite the fact that he is not really the president because he is not really an American, I have to say he is doing a bang up job for a secret Muslim infiltrator."
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 05:28:07 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 23, 2009, 03:14:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 02:51:47 AM
Incidentally, speaking of crazy I always like the groups who really double down on their crazy. The 10% who either refuse to recognise or don't know whether Hawaii is in the US or not.
Most of them are probably just dumb.
I wondered if maybe they were just elderly. People who still aren't sure whether or not Arizona's a state or the Grandpa Simpson brigade.
I seriously think a good number of them are Hawaiian secessionists.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 24, 2009, 12:16:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 05:28:07 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 23, 2009, 03:14:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2009, 02:51:47 AM
Incidentally, speaking of crazy I always like the groups who really double down on their crazy. The 10% who either refuse to recognise or don't know whether Hawaii is in the US or not.
Most of them are probably just dumb.
I wondered if maybe they were just elderly. People who still aren't sure whether or not Arizona's a state or the Grandpa Simpson brigade.
I seriously think a good number of them are Hawaiian secessionists.
In a poll of the entire United States they wouldn't show up though unless there was a huge oversampling of Hawaii.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 24, 2009, 12:16:40 PM
I seriously think a good number of them are Hawaiian secessionists.
In a poll of the entire United States they wouldn't show up though unless there was a huge oversampling of Hawaii.
Yeah, that's why I didn't say a majority or anything like that. You'd be surprised how many mainlanders sympathize though. I see it way more than I'd expect out here. Isn't there some kind of law now that gives "Hawaiians" a kind of independent status like indian tribes?