http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Fimages%2Fobama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg&hash=6b23289e95421b2caec5f6f738910561a5ab7212)
Color me...not surprised. They may as well stop beating around the Bush, burn the cross on the White House lawn and break out in a hearty chant of "Come out Nigger! Come outside right now!"
Quote
Posters portraying President Obama as a witch doctor may be racist, organizers of Tea Party protests say, but they reflect anger about where he is leading the country.
The Proof is in the pudding.
Quote
"Now we have a black president, which means, on its most basic level, that a black man has more power than any single white citizen in this country," Cobb said. "Whether people want to admit it or not, I suspect the Tea Party crowd believes that the currency of whiteness has been devalued."
There's another wrinkle to the witch doctor controversy. Obama was mocked by some critics as the "magical negro" during the campaign because he was perceived to be a solve-all to nation's problems.
Enjoy, Languish. This is the party of Hansmeister and derspiess.
Goodnight. ^_^ Give me something good to read when I wakes up.
Quote from: Jaron on September 18, 2009, 04:02:43 AM
Enjoy, Languish. This is the party of Hansmeister and derspiess.
You mean the two miscegenationists?
I have to laugh at the sillyness of CNN of picking out a single protest sign out of hundreds of thousands in order to try to smear people who oppose Obamacare as racist.
@ Jaron: Where does it say anything about this being "Republican protesters"?
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 18, 2009, 04:11:39 AM@ Jaron: Where does it say anything about this being "Republican protesters"?
They're not mentioned in the article, since they're showing up at Presidential appearances with weapons.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 18, 2009, 04:11:39 AM
I have to laugh at the sillyness of CNN of picking out a single protest sign
the one right next to it is just as bad.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 18, 2009, 04:11:39 AM
I have to laugh at the sillyness of CNN of picking out a single protest sign out of hundreds of thousands in order to try to smear people who oppose Obamacare as racist.
@ Jaron: Where does it say anything about this being "Republican protesters"?
You're right Hans. These are probably Democrats.
Its more the hammer and sickle that has me :bleeding:
Quote from: Tyr on September 18, 2009, 10:42:38 AM
Its more the hammer and sickle that has me :bleeding:
The Republican nutters are pulling out the stops by calling the Democrats Communists AND Nazis. I mean Stalinobamahitler? That is just first rate.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2009, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 18, 2009, 10:42:38 AM
Its more the hammer and sickle that has me :bleeding:
The Republican nutters are pulling out the stops by calling the Democrats Communists AND Nazis. I mean Stalinobamahitler? That is just first rate.
Trotzkobamadolf.
Now is that a black witch doctor, or some other ethnicity? Because if the ethnicity of the body of the original witch doctor is not black, the poster is not racist by technicality :D
At any rate, I'm still not convinced the intent of the poster is racist, per se. If the person who did the poster was trying to represent Obama as a sort of witch doctor, what should he have done-- made the witch doctor's body white or European looking? Put Obama's head on a chiropractor? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 11:31:54 AM
what should he have done
What people always do in American politics: portray Obama as Hitler. For the historically savvy they could use Dr. Mengele.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 11:31:54 AM
Now is that a black witch doctor, or some other ethnicity? Because if the ethnicity of the body of the original witch doctor is not black, the poster is not racist by technicality :D
At any rate, I'm still not convinced the intent of the poster is racist, per se. If the person who did the poster was trying to represent Obama as a sort of witch doctor, what should he have done-- made the witch doctor's body white or European looking? Put Obama's head on a chiropractor? :unsure:
Having reading problems, son?
They ADMITTED its racist:
Quote
Posters portraying President Obama as a witch doctor may be racist, organizers of Tea Party protests say, but they reflect anger about where he is leading the country.
Quote from: Jaron on September 18, 2009, 12:05:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 11:31:54 AM
Now is that a black witch doctor, or some other ethnicity? Because if the ethnicity of the body of the original witch doctor is not black, the poster is not racist by technicality :D
At any rate, I'm still not convinced the intent of the poster is racist, per se. If the person who did the poster was trying to represent Obama as a sort of witch doctor, what should he have done-- made the witch doctor's body white or European looking? Put Obama's head on a chiropractor? :unsure:
Having reading problems, son?
They ADMITTED its racist:
Quote
Posters portraying President Obama as a witch doctor may be racist, organizers of Tea Party protests say, but they reflect anger about where he is leading the country.
Si, puedo leer, Chancho. Did it say the organizers were the ones who made the posters?
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 12:43:16 PM
Si, puedo leer, Chancho. Did it say the organizers were the ones who made the posters?
You are nuts dude. Any logical fair person would conclude that is racist.
I am not one to jump up and say everything is racist...well ok but I would be just kidding around...but that is pretty blatant. What do you have to do to be racist to you Spicey? Hang black men in effigy with a sign saying 'kill all subhumans'?
I think it's supposed to mean that our health care will devolve to the level of the witch doctor. Maybe it wasn't intended at first to be overtly racist, but holy crap. How many people would have to see such a thing before somebody thinks "hey, this might be construed as racist..."?
It's racist all right. It would be surprising if a protest against the policies of a Black President didn't attract racist imagry. This is a "dog bites man" story.
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
Way I read the quote, the organizers of the protest are claiming that the racism is just an expression of anger, not the cause. Of course they may well be bullshitting.
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 12:59:26 PM
It's racist all right. It would be surprising if a protest against the policies of a Black President didn't attract racist imagry. This is a "dog bites man" story.
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
Way I read the quote, the organizers of the protest are claiming that the racism is just an expression of anger, not the cause. Of course they may well be bullshitting.
I'm surprised at your line Malthus. Would you be as phlegmatic about this "dog bites man" story if people were protesting against a Jewish president with anti-semitic imagery? I think if someone was to argue that anti-semitic signs and slogans were "just an expression of anger" you wouldn't consider it an open question whether they were bullshitting or not; I expect you would hold them responsible, or at the very least, expect a condemnation.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2009, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 12:59:26 PM
It's racist all right. It would be surprising if a protest against the policies of a Black President didn't attract racist imagry. This is a "dog bites man" story.
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
Way I read the quote, the organizers of the protest are claiming that the racism is just an expression of anger, not the cause. Of course they may well be bullshitting.
I'm surprised at your line Malthus. Would you be as phlegmatic about this "dog bites man" story if people were protesting against a Jewish president with anti-semitic imagery? I think if someone was to argue that anti-semitic signs and slogans were "just an expression of anger" you wouldn't consider it an open question whether they were bullshitting or not; I expect you would hold them responsible, or at the very least, expect a condemnation.
Sure, I'd expect a Jewish President to attract anti-Semitic types to protests against him. Probably many of the same people now holding up posters of Obama photoshopped onto a witch-doctor. Why would that come as a surprise to anyone?
The "story" would be the extent to which those organizing the protests are, in fact, deliberately manipulating public opinion by coyly encouraging anti-Semitism (while of course denying that they are anti-semitic themselves).
I see no discernable difference, except this: America has a long & tortured history with racism, and not nearly so much with anti-semitism.
Again, dog bites man. I'd be surprised (and of course pleased) if a Jewish President aroused *no* Jew-hating protesters.
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2009, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 12:59:26 PM
It's racist all right. It would be surprising if a protest against the policies of a Black President didn't attract racist imagry. This is a "dog bites man" story.
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
Way I read the quote, the organizers of the protest are claiming that the racism is just an expression of anger, not the cause. Of course they may well be bullshitting.
I'm surprised at your line Malthus. Would you be as phlegmatic about this "dog bites man" story if people were protesting against a Jewish president with anti-semitic imagery? I think if someone was to argue that anti-semitic signs and slogans were "just an expression of anger" you wouldn't consider it an open question whether they were bullshitting or not; I expect you would hold them responsible, or at the very least, expect a condemnation.
Sure, I'd expect a Jewish President to attract anti-Semitic types to protests against him. Probably many of the same people now holding up posters of Obama photoshopped onto a witch-doctor. Why would that come as a surprise to anyone?
The "story" would be the extent to which those organizing the protests are, in fact, deliberately manipulating public opinion by coyly encouraging anti-Semitism (while of course denying that they are anti-semitic themselves).
I see no discernable difference, except this: America has a long & tortured history with racism, and not nearly so much with anti-semitism.
Again, dog bites man. I'd be surprised (and of course pleased) if a Jewish President aroused *no* Jew-hating protesters.
Anti semitism is as American as apple pie and baseball.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmakkah.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fno-irish-need-apply.gif&hash=68f8c2fb27f113ab9ce529f51b481a5e9a33cae8)
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 01:48:59 PM
Sure, I'd expect a Jewish President to attract anti-Semitic types to protests against him.
Or, a Jewish Senator. It's not like some haven't been openly anti semetic towards Israeli Senator Leiberman.
Quote from: Jaron on September 18, 2009, 01:54:45 PM
Anti semitism is as American as apple pie and baseball.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmakkah.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fno-irish-need-apply.gif&hash=68f8c2fb27f113ab9ce529f51b481a5e9a33cae8)
Against
Irish Jews, certainly. No-one likes
them. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 02:01:22 PM
Against Irish Jews, certainly. No-one likes them. ;)
James Joyce did. :)
Quote from: Jaron on September 18, 2009, 01:54:45 PM
Anti semitism is as American as apple pie and baseball.
It gives you indigestion and charges too much for tickets?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2009, 12:58:37 PM
I think it's supposed to mean that our health care will devolve to the level of the witch doctor. Maybe it wasn't intended at first to be overtly racist, but holy crap. How many people would have to see such a thing before somebody thinks "hey, this might be construed as racist..."?
Agree.
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 12:59:26 PM
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
I think this would scare off more people than it would attract.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 12:59:26 PM
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
I think this would scare off more people than it would attract.
Depends. Certainly breaking out the White hoods and burning crosses would, but it is possible to work on racist resentments and sentiment more subtley - assuming that such resentments are in fact widely shared.
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 02:22:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2009, 12:59:26 PM
The only issue is the extent to which the organizers of such protests are deliberately stirring up the racist pot in order to advance their aims.
I think this would scare off more people than it would attract.
Depends. Certainly breaking out the White hoods and burning crosses would, but it is possible to work on racist resentments and sentiment more subtley - assuming that such resentments are in fact widely shared.
I think this assumption is the key to this entire "issue".
There is this assumption that the Evil Right is full of racists, so of course the left is ultra-quick to level the accusation, regardless of whether or not there is any basis for it beyond their own certainty that it MUST be true.
A black man is president, so of course the Dems are going to use that as a political bludgeon as much as they can. If Hillary had been elected, we would be seeing this same "issue" over the rampant (yet strangely well hidden) sexism that permeates all non-true liberals.
What I find amazing about it is the ease of which otherwise pretty rational posters embrace this tactic.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:29:19 PM
I think this assumption is the key to this entire "issue".
What assumption? That you can use racism as a political weapon? Why are you quoting Malthus and acting like he is being taken in by some evil leftist conspiracy? Did you even read what he was saying because this strikes me as completely unrelated.
He was saying it was only indicative of racism if the organizers were attempting to manipulate racism in some way, not that obviously the evil right wing was full of racists.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2009, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:29:19 PM
I think this assumption is the key to this entire "issue".
What assumption? That you can use racism as a political weapon? Why are you quoting Malthus and acting like he is being taken in by some evil leftist conspiracy? Did you even read what he was saying because this strikes me as completely unrelated.
He was saying it was only indicative of racism if the organizers were attempting to manipulate racism in some way, not that obviously the evil right wing was full of racists.
I am quoting Malthus because he is the person I was responding to. He did not claim that the right was full of racists, hence there is no need for you to presume that simply because I am quoting him, I am claiming that he DOES think that.
Calm down.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
They called him a stupid redneck, said he looked like a monkey, etc., but that's okay 'cuz he is a white guy.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
They called him a stupid redneck, said he looked like a monkey, etc., but that's okay 'cuz he is a white guy.
Right.
The reason the race card is being played now is simply because it CAN be played now - Obama is black, so it is a way to go after those who are opposed to him. I don't see any reason to believe there is anything more to any of this than that.
Are there crazies out there who have a problem with him because he is black? I am sure there are. Is that the basis for the rights opposition to him? No way.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
Of course. Democrats are just as evil if not more so. :rolleyes: Find me this widespread hate during Bush's first year in office.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
Find me this widespread hate during Bush's first year in office.
Ehm, do you recall Inaguration Day 2001?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
Of course. Democrats are just as evil if not more so. :rolleyes: Find me this widespread hate during Bush's first year in office.
He had historically low approval ratings after his first year.
Remember - that was the year that saw a bunch of horriffic cabinet appointments, and it was made clear that his "moderate" campaign facade was just that.
He was HATED after the first year, not the least of which by me for his inane faith based religious funding bullshit.
Can't we all just get along?
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
Really? You have a polls to back that up compared to say clinton and Obama?
Of course. Democrats are just as evil if not more so. :rolleyes: Find me this widespread hate during Bush's first year in office.
He had historically low approval ratings after his first year.
Remember - that was the year that saw a bunch of horriffic cabinet appointments, and it was made clear that his "moderate" campaign facade was just that.
He was HATED after the first year, not the least of which by me for his inane faith based religious funding bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
I'm randomly inserting my reply into the middle of the mess of quotes. Sure some people are racist against Obama. But it's not "ok" like it was with Bush, where several black congresspeople tried to prevent him from even taking office.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
Really? You have a polls to back that up compared to say clinton and Obama?
Of course. Democrats are just as evil if not more so. :rolleyes: Find me this widespread hate during Bush's first year in office.
He had historically low approval ratings after his first year.
Remember - that was the year that saw a bunch of horriffic cabinet appointments, and it was made clear that his "moderate" campaign facade was just that.
He was HATED after the first year, not the least of which by me for his inane faith based religious funding bullshit.
All good points.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 06:09:56 PM
He had historically low approval ratings after his first year.
That usually happens when, oh I dunno, the other guy gets more votes. I think it's, like, a mathematical thing.
America's love affair with racism is in full swing.
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2009, 07:50:37 PM
America's love affair with racism is in full swing.
It's a teachable moment.
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
They called him a stupid redneck, said he looked like a monkey, etc., but that's okay 'cuz he is a white guy.
Right.
The reason the race card is being played now is simply because it CAN be played now - Obama is black, so it is a way to go after those who are opposed to him. I don't see any reason to believe there is anything more to any of this than that.
Are there crazies out there who have a problem with him because he is black? I am sure there are. Is that the basis for the rights opposition to him? No way.
The question is: is it ok to use racist imagery to attack a black guy, even though you disagree with him on grounds that are not related to his race? I'd say it is still racist.
Imagine Germany had a Jewish treasury minister who wanted to raise taxes and his opponents (who would oppose him for non-ethnic, economical reasons) depicted him in cartoons as a crook-nosed money-grabbing Jew. Surely that would be antisemitic (and probably attract much more furore).
This truly is disgusting times for America.
Other than our figures, I don't see what is so disgusting about the times.
All that racism we kept so nicely tucked away is bubbling to the surface. We're showing our true colors.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
They called him a stupid redneck, said he looked like a monkey, etc., but that's okay 'cuz he is a white guy.
Do you seriously fail to see the difference between using someone's race to attack him vs. using someone's non-race-related appearance as a basis of an attack?
Opposition to racism isn't just a part of some broader "let's be nice to each other" movement. Racism is considered much more evil than just being "impolite".
The words arent as important as who they are being used against.
If you call your buddy a stupid faggot, its a playful insult, but it can be more damaging against a homo-sexual.
If they made a cartoon of Obama dressed as a maid serving dinner or something, it might get a few chuckles. If Hillary was the maid, it'd probably cause a bit of a furor with the feminist types.
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 04:24:46 AM
The words arent as important as who they are being used against.
If you call your buddy a stupid faggot, its a playful insult, but it can be more damaging against a homo-sexual.
If they made a cartoon of Obama dressed as a maid serving dinner or something, it might get a few chuckles. If Hillary was the maid, it'd probably cause a bit of a furor with the feminist types.
Indeed.
People are acting as if the world was color (or gender-) blind. It isn't. And it means that you can't make one-size-fits all rules either. A cartoon showing a WASP grinding babies into food could be just an example of a more or less tasteless satire of his stance on something. A cartoon showing a Jew in the same situation would be (rightly) considered blood libel.
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 04:19:34 AM
All that racism we kept so nicely tucked away is bubbling to the surface. We're showing our true colors.
When did we keep it nicely tucked away?
Remarkably Bush had fairly good poll numbers prior to 9/11. Around the mid 50's.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RXzgJ00cVXI/AAAAAAAAAAk/taSqQWZ_jm0/s1600-h/BushFullTerm20061208.png
Not fantastic, but he wasn't exactly fantastic himself. He doesn't seem to have gone below 50% in his first term much at all.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2009, 04:34:49 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 04:19:34 AM
All that racism we kept so nicely tucked away is bubbling to the surface. We're showing our true colors.
When did we keep it nicely tucked away?
Since roughly the 70s?
Willie Horton, "Hymietown", Clarence Thomas, Rodney King, McCain's "nigger baby", Bush hate crimes commercial, attempt to not inaugurate Bush, Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday, chronic anti-immigrant speeches, etc etc etc. Racially charged politics isn't something new with Obama.
Wow, its like someone asked you to pitch and you turned around and threw it into the outfield. :blink:
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 05:17:51 AM
Wow, its like someone asked you to pitch and you turned around and threw it into the outfield. :blink:
Get Marty to pitch for you, I'm not playing on that team. :lol:
You would bat for the other team?
I think I'll just sit the game out. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2009, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 18, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 02:26:48 PM
Seeing the town hall meetings with the daily shrieking white woman screaming "I want my country back" I'd say it's fairly widespread.
Uhhh, people screamed stuff like that when Bush was President.
They called him a stupid redneck, said he looked like a monkey, etc., but that's okay 'cuz he is a white guy.
Right.
The reason the race card is being played now is simply because it CAN be played now - Obama is black, so it is a way to go after those who are opposed to him. I don't see any reason to believe there is anything more to any of this than that.
Are there crazies out there who have a problem with him because he is black? I am sure there are. Is that the basis for the rights opposition to him? No way.
The question is: is it ok to use racist imagery to attack a black guy, even though you disagree with him on grounds that are not related to his race? I'd say it is still racist.
Of course it isn't ok.
Quote
Imagine Germany had a Jewish treasury minister who wanted to raise taxes and his opponents (who would oppose him for non-ethnic, economical reasons) depicted him in cartoons as a crook-nosed money-grabbing Jew. Surely that would be antisemitic (and probably attract much more furore).
Indeed, and it should raise a furor. It should not be seen as reflective of the views of the entire party though, at least without some good reason.
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
But the racist nutjobs are alienated - nobody takes them seriously. They aren't like the moveon wing of the left.
This isn't about a kooky fringe - it is about the left trying to label simple opposition to the president as racism. The fact that there might be some crazies out there is irrelevant.
Even the nutty religious right isn't particularly racist.
Typical. You act like there are so many sensible flavors of the right and all the left wing can be safely lumped into one cohesive force.
I am in all respects just slightly to the left of center, and I can see the fantacism of the far left (dailykos and the like). During election season, they are allies of convenience, but I don't know why you can't see that these are fringe elements and not accepted by the mainstream. The rest of us have higher expectations and are more critical of Obama. We just don't have to use the word nigger to get our point across like some of your right wing friends seem to need (albeit it ever so subtly)
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 04:28:11 AM
Indeed.
People are acting as if the world was color (or gender-) blind. It isn't. And it means that you can't make one-size-fits all rules either. A cartoon showing a WASP grinding babies into food could be just an example of a more or less tasteless satire of his stance on something. A cartoon showing a Jew in the same situation would be (rightly) considered blood libel.
So do people need to run around memorizing stereotypes of various groups so as not to offend them?
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2009, 05:35:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 04:28:11 AM
Indeed.
People are acting as if the world was color (or gender-) blind. It isn't. And it means that you can't make one-size-fits all rules either. A cartoon showing a WASP grinding babies into food could be just an example of a more or less tasteless satire of his stance on something. A cartoon showing a Jew in the same situation would be (rightly) considered blood libel.
So do people need to run around memorizing stereotypes of various groups so as not to offend them?
In essence, yes. That is correct. It is common sense in a multicultural democracy that such sensitivies must be adhered to.
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 05:51:47 PM
In essence, yes. That is correct. It is common sense in a multicultural democracy that such sensitivies must be adhered to.
Doesn't it seem self-defeating to encourage people to learn beliefs about other groups that we don't want them to espouse?
Unless you're going to claim that all the racist imagry and wording being used since Obama was elected is due to ignorance, I don't see the point of your argument. It is pretty clear to me anyways that the intent is malice.
Quote from: Berkut on September 19, 2009, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
But the racist nutjobs are alienated - nobody takes them seriously. They aren't like the moveon wing of the left.
This isn't about a kooky fringe - it is about the left trying to label simple opposition to the president as racism. The fact that there might be some crazies out there is irrelevant.
Even the nutty religious right isn't particularly racist.
How do you know this? And why are they able to be equated with moveon.org
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2009, 08:26:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 19, 2009, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
But the racist nutjobs are alienated - nobody takes them seriously. They aren't like the moveon wing of the left.
This isn't about a kooky fringe - it is about the left trying to label simple opposition to the president as racism. The fact that there might be some crazies out there is irrelevant.
Even the nutty religious right isn't particularly racist.
How do you know this? And why are they able to be equated with moveon.org
They aren't equated - that is the point.
Moveon is the nutty wing of the left, but they are still certainly part of the left, and a powerful part.
The racist whackjobs who have signs with Obama dressed up like a witch doctor are not part of any actual portion of the Republican party. They are just some fruit loops out there. The left has them as well, like all the people who were swearing that Bush was going to have a coup or something.
This isn't about them though - this is about Carter and Seedy and JR trying to convince everyone that in fact the run of the mill members of the party are all double secret code racists, and that is why they don't like Obama.
I'm asking how do you know these things? How do you know that moveon is the extreme nutty left and that the racists we see are so divorced from the mainstream of the right?
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2009, 12:48:28 PM
You are nuts dude. Any logical fair person would conclude that is racist.
Only if you're an American, and are thus hypersensitive to race.
But then again, you eliminated Americans when you said 'logical'.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2009, 09:08:26 PM
I'm asking how do you know these things? How do you know that moveon is the extreme nutty left and that the racists we see are so divorced from the mainstream of the right?
If you disagree with these things, normally what you would do is present some argument saying that they are not correct and why.
If you think Moveon and those types are part of the mainstream left, then great - but it doesn't really damage my case.
If you think that the people who are clearly racist represent the mainstream of the right, then feel free to make that case. So far, it is has only been made on the basis of some kind of double secret hidden code that only JR and Shelf (and Jimmy Carter) can apparently read.
Quote from: Berkut on September 19, 2009, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2009, 09:08:26 PM
I'm asking how do you know these things? How do you know that moveon is the extreme nutty left and that the racists we see are so divorced from the mainstream of the right?
If you disagree with these things, normally what you would do is present some argument saying that they are not correct and why.
If you think Moveon and those types are part of the mainstream left, then great - but it doesn't really damage my case.
If you think that the people who are clearly racist represent the mainstream of the right, then feel free to make that case. So far, it is has only been made on the basis of some kind of double secret hidden code that only JR and Shelf (and Jimmy Carter) can apparently read.
In other words you aren't going to tell me why you know these things.
Quote from: Strix on September 19, 2009, 08:59:19 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.
We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet. I wonder how many Birthers and Tea Party-ers will be in the next Republican administration (that is, if they aren't all dead of old age, which they hopefully will be the next time the Republicans take power).
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 01:27:47 AM
We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet. I wonder how many Birthers and Tea Party-ers will be in the next Republican administration (that is, if they aren't all dead of old age, which they hopefully will be the next time the Republicans take power).
Yeah, having Dems across the board has just been fabulous.
Quote from: Strix on September 19, 2009, 08:59:19 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.
Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?
Quote from: Berkut on September 19, 2009, 09:05:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2009, 08:26:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 19, 2009, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
But the racist nutjobs are alienated - nobody takes them seriously. They aren't like the moveon wing of the left.
This isn't about a kooky fringe - it is about the left trying to label simple opposition to the president as racism. The fact that there might be some crazies out there is irrelevant.
Even the nutty religious right isn't particularly racist.
How do you know this? And why are they able to be equated with moveon.org
They aren't equated - that is the point.
Moveon is the nutty wing of the left, but they are still certainly part of the left, and a powerful part.
The racist whackjobs who have signs with Obama dressed up like a witch doctor are not part of any actual portion of the Republican party. They are just some fruit loops out there. The left has them as well, like all the people who were swearing that Bush was going to have a coup or something.
This isn't about them though - this is about Carter and Seedy and JR trying to convince everyone that in fact the run of the mill members of the party are all double secret code racists, and that is why they don't like Obama.
The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?
Anyway, while what Americans consider "moderate" is different from the rest of the world, I think it is worth mentioning that, whereas your "extreme" left would bring you closer to what European "moderate" left is, your "extreme" right would bring you closer to what Iranian "moderate" right is.
So I guess it is up to you - what extreme is worse - being like Europeans or being like Iranians.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 03:03:10 AM
Anyway, while what Americans consider "moderate" is different from the rest of the world, I think it is worth mentioning that, whereas your "extreme" left would bring you closer to what European "moderate" left is, your "extreme" right would bring you closer to what Iranian "moderate" right is.
So I guess it is up to you - what extreme is worse - being like Europeans or being like Iranians.
Maybe you should go back to bed and try again on Monday.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 19, 2009, 08:59:19 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.
As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.
And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.
We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet. I wonder how many Birthers and Tea Party-ers will be in the next Republican administration (that is, if they aren't all dead of old age, which they hopefully will be the next time the Republicans take power).
Take a look at some of Bush's guys. Guys like Ted Olson were knee deep in Clinton conspiracy theories.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 03:01:05 AM
The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?
I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme. However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 03:25:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 03:01:05 AM
The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?
I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme. However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.
That's because the Republican extremes have more money and fundraising abilities. Nothing opens up the checkbook than pictures of dead foeteouses on a Sunday morn.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 03:25:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 03:01:05 AM
The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?
I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme. However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.
That's because the Republican extremes are numerous and willing to donate and organize. The Democratic extremists are less of a danger to take over the party because nobody can take over the Democratic Party, they can only try and keep it from flying apart in a thousand different directions.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
That's because the Republican extremes are numerous and willing to donate and organize. The Democratic extremists are less of a danger to take over the party because nobody can take over the Democratic Party, they can only try and keep it from flying apart in a thousand different directions.
I think this is right, and, more importantly, the Republicans will also not donate or organise and not vote (or field a new primary candidate). I wonder if it it's because the Republicans have an ideological base - the conservative movement - and have had that since Goldwater. In that time it's grown in strength. The Democrats seem more like an old-fashioned trans-national coalition of different specific groups with different interests and different agendas. But that does mean that the Democrats like the ideological power that a successful intellectual movement can provide - a la Irving Kristol, Chambers, Buckley and so on. The Democrats are too fractious for something like that, they'll always need a coalition-building approach to idelogy.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:59:43 AM
Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?
I think you are though. I don't get the connect between the Republicans being racist and Obama being compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Are you trying to say that mainstream Republicans are making those statements? Do you even understand what is being discussed?
Quote from: Strix on September 20, 2009, 08:54:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:59:43 AM
Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?
I think you are though. I don't get the connect between the Republicans being racist and Obama being compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Are you trying to say that mainstream Republicans are making those statements? Do you even understand what is being discussed?
This is Martinus you're talking about. If it's not about gays he doesn't really understand a discussion.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 20, 2009, 08:57:26 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 20, 2009, 08:54:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:59:43 AM
Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?
I think you are though. I don't get the connect between the Republicans being racist and Obama being compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Are you trying to say that mainstream Republicans are making those statements?
(https://languish.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=340;type=avatar)
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 08:34:09 AM
In that time it's grown in strength. The Democrats seem more like an old-fashioned trans-national coalition of different specific groups with different interests and different agendas. But that does mean that the Democrats like the ideological power that a successful intellectual movement can provide - a la Irving Kristol, Chambers, Buckley and so on. The Democrats are too fractious for something like that, they'll always need a coalition-building approach to idelogy.
I think there have been times of greater and lesser Democrat idealogical unity. The New Deal, and the thirty years after it, saw the Democrats functioning as a far more coherent idealogical unit with a far more developed idealogical base.
Also, it is worth remembering that the Republican idealogical unity today came out of the post-Depression Republican party that couldn't do anything but bitch while the Democrats transformed the country. I don't think it is impossible that we are in a similar situation now, especially as my/our generation will remember how awful the Bush administration was for the rest of our lives.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 10:16:49 AM
I don't think it is impossible that we are in a similar situation now, especially as my/our generation will remember how awful the Bush administration was for the rest of our lives.
People forgot about Carter quick enough.
Quote from: Strix on September 20, 2009, 10:18:33 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 10:16:49 AM
I don't think it is impossible that we are in a similar situation now, especially as my/our generation will remember how awful the Bush administration was for the rest of our lives.
People forgot about Carter quick enough.
I don't think that is true at all. He made Reagan look a lot better than he was.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 10:20:46 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 20, 2009, 10:18:33 AM
People forgot about Carter quick enough.
I don't think that is true at all. He made Reagan look a lot better than he was.
Yes he did and he made people forget Carter. The same thing will happen with Bush once the economy gets back on track. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing well, so that isn't an albatross that will hang around Bush's neck. In the long run, Bush like Carter will be forgotten because they didn't do much of note during the Presidency. Bush like Carter will also be known by the crisis that occurred during their Presidency that neither handled that well but issues like that aren't remembered except on Languish.
Quote from: Strix on September 20, 2009, 10:28:10 AM
Yes he did and he made people forget Carter. The same thing will happen with Bush once the economy gets back on track. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing well, so that isn't an albatross that will hang around Bush's neck. In the long run, Bush like Carter will be forgotten because they didn't do much of note during the Presidency. Bush like Carter will also be known by the crisis that occurred during their Presidency that neither handled that well but issues like that aren't remembered except on Languish.
Herbert Hoover poisoned an entire generation of people to conservatism and the Republican party
without starting, not financing and botching two wars. People are shaped by the administration and atmosphere they grew up in, and Bush's presidency will be remembered as a Republican high water mark and a total fucking disaster zone.
EDIT: Even though I think his post-Katrina presidency was about as improved as a president's second term after a disastrous first can be.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 10:34:44 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 20, 2009, 10:28:10 AM
Yes he did and he made people forget Carter. The same thing will happen with Bush once the economy gets back on track. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing well, so that isn't an albatross that will hang around Bush's neck. In the long run, Bush like Carter will be forgotten because they didn't do much of note during the Presidency. Bush like Carter will also be known by the crisis that occurred during their Presidency that neither handled that well but issues like that aren't remembered except on Languish.
Herbert Hoover poisoned an entire generation of people to conservatism and the Republican party without starting, not financing and botching two wars. People are shaped by the administration and atmosphere they grew up in, and Bush's presidency will be remembered as a Republican high water mark and a total fucking disaster zone.
EDIT: Even though I think his post-Katrina presidency was about as improved as a president's second term after a disastrous first can be.
Well, you certainly think so. However, Iraq and Afghanistan don't really matter in the long run, just as people kept voting Republican even after he performed some military interventions that snivelling leftists whined about.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 10:16:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 08:34:09 AM
In that time it's grown in strength. The Democrats seem more like an old-fashioned trans-national coalition of different specific groups with different interests and different agendas. But that does mean that the Democrats like the ideological power that a successful intellectual movement can provide - a la Irving Kristol, Chambers, Buckley and so on. The Democrats are too fractious for something like that, they'll always need a coalition-building approach to idelogy.
I think there have been times of greater and lesser Democrat idealogical unity. The New Deal, and the thirty years after it, saw the Democrats functioning as a far more coherent idealogical unit with a far more developed idealogical base.
Also, it is worth remembering that the Republican idealogical unity today came out of the post-Depression Republican party that couldn't do anything but bitch while the Democrats transformed the country. I don't think it is impossible that we are in a similar situation now, especially as my/our generation will remember how awful the Bush administration was for the rest of our lives.
After the emerging train-wreck of the Obama administration nobody will remember any of Bush's faults. It only took Jimmy Carter 4 years to make the country forget Nixon/Ford, I doubt it will take Obama any longer.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 03:25:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 03:01:05 AM
The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?
I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme. However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.
That's because the Republican extremes are numerous and willing to donate and organize. The Democratic extremists are less of a danger to take over the party because nobody can take over the Democratic Party, they can only try and keep it from flying apart in a thousand different directions.
Well that's true, as conservatives have always been and will always be more organized and cohesive, because they represent the reactionary majority whereas progressives represent various interest groups that want to upset the status quo in a myriad of different ways.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 08:34:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
That's because the Republican extremes are numerous and willing to donate and organize. The Democratic extremists are less of a danger to take over the party because nobody can take over the Democratic Party, they can only try and keep it from flying apart in a thousand different directions.
I think this is right, and, more importantly, the Republicans will also not donate or organise and not vote (or field a new primary candidate). I wonder if it it's because the Republicans have an ideological base - the conservative movement - and have had that since Goldwater. In that time it's grown in strength. The Democrats seem more like an old-fashioned trans-national coalition of different specific groups with different interests and different agendas. But that does mean that the Democrats like the ideological power that a successful intellectual movement can provide - a la Irving Kristol, Chambers, Buckley and so on. The Democrats are too fractious for something like that, they'll always need a coalition-building approach to idelogy.
I think you are giving Republicans too much credit. There isn't much ideological coherence between a NYC neocon and a rural Kansas preacher, really.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 11:24:54 AM
I think you are giving Republicans too much credit. There isn't much ideological coherence between a NYC neocon and a rural Kansas preacher, really.
Are you using neocon here in the European sense of "like a conservative, but much worse," or in the strict sense of formerly leftist Jewish intellectual who has recanted his ways and now believes in an assertive foreign policy which spreads democracy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 12:10:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 11:24:54 AM
I think you are giving Republicans too much credit. There isn't much ideological coherence between a NYC neocon and a rural Kansas preacher, really.
Are you using neocon here in the European sense of "like a conservative, but much worse," or in the strict sense of formerly leftist Jewish intellectual who has recanted his ways and now believes in an assertive foreign policy which spreads democracy?
The latter, I believe. People like Wolfowitz or (to a lesser extent) Cheney.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 10:47:30 AM
Well, you certainly think so. However, Iraq and Afghanistan don't really matter in the long run, just as people kept voting Republican even after he performed some military interventions that snivelling leftists whined about.
:yes:
Apparently many Americans thought his first term was alright.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 12:36:04 PM
The latter, I believe. People like Wolfowitz or (to a lesser extent) Cheney.
Yup. I misread your earlier post and thought you had sad there *is* coherence between the two.
I've said it many times: the Republican party has two main ideological bases: prohibitionists and libertarians. They can and do conflict in the realm of individual freedom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 12:10:16 PMAre you using neocon here in the European sense of "like a conservative, but much worse," or in the strict sense of formerly leftist Jewish intellectual who has recanted his ways and now believes in an assertive foreign policy which spreads democracy?
That's only a modern turn neoconservatism's taken though - and I think 'an assertive foreign policy which spreads democracy' is a beautifully phrased version of modern neoconservatism. Neoconservatism started as almost entirely preoccupied with domestic policy and, especially, urban policy.
Its only fair. The Republicans fucked us over with the rest of the world, and now the Democrats will fuck us up domestically. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 01:40:53 PM
That's only a modern turn neoconservatism's taken though - and I think 'an assertive foreign policy which spreads democracy' is a beautifully phrased version of modern neoconservatism. Neoconservatism started as almost entirely preoccupied with domestic policy and, especially, urban policy.
Huh? Everything I've read about Irving Kristol and friends has to do with their falling out with progressives/socialists over the latter's failure to face up to the brutality of Soviet rule.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 03:01:05 AM
The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?
Not at all - but the Religious Right is not generally racist - far from it in fact.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 01:27:47 AM
We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet.
You and who else? And what did you kick him out of? Your tree house?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 01:49:03 PM
Huh? Everything I've read about Irving Kristol and friends has to do with their falling out with progressives/socialists over the latter's failure to face up to the brutality of Soviet rule.
TYhat's how I've always seen it, but maybe there is a British Neoconservative movement older than the American one, that was focused on urban issues.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 01:27:47 AM
We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet.
You and who else? And what did you kick him out of? Your tree house?
:rolleyes:
We-Democrats
Kicked out-of his cabinet level position.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 01:49:03 PM
Huh? Everything I've read about Irving Kristol and friends has to do with their falling out with progressives/socialists over the latter's failure to face up to the brutality of Soviet rule.
Not at all. Kristol and the 'Public Interest' started in the mid-60s which was hardly a time of progressive acquiesence to Soviet brutality. He became critical of the foreign policy of the New Left as the 60s and 70s went on but neo-conservatism was a critique of the 'Great Society' and progressive domestic failings and a perceived hostility to capitalism on the part of the left in the 60s.
You can see the lack of a foreign policy focus just by browsing through the back catalogue of 'The Public Interest', which is fascinating anyway:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/archive/public_interest/default.asp
I think the foreign policy element only really came to the fore in the 80s and 90s.
Also in this Kristol essay - which I've only just found and skimmed - doesn't seem to mention foreign affairs at all, and this is from 1995:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080709_19951216americanconservatism19451995irvingkristol.pdf
I'll read it to make sure.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 02:31:52 PM
:rolleyes:
We-Democrats
Kicked out-of his cabinet level position.
Ah, I see. A Democratic appointee resigns, and you see it as a personal accomplishment. :rolleyes:
Whatever validates you in your own eyes is okay by me, I suppose, but don't expect others (like me) to understand when you claim personal credit for the actions of cabinet officers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 02:42:36 PM
Also in this Kristol essay - which I've only just found and skimmed - doesn't seem to mention foreign affairs at all, and this is from 1995:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080709_19951216americanconservatism19451995irvingkristol.pdf
I'll read it to make sure.
Interesting. Kristol's argument seems to me to be that he was a true conservative who once was simply confused and thought he was a liberal.
But you are correct, and have corrected my misunderstanding on the issue.
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2009, 12:09:31 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 02:31:52 PM
:rolleyes:
We-Democrats
Kicked out-of his cabinet level position.
Ah, I see. A Democratic appointee resigns, and you see it as a personal accomplishment. :rolleyes:
Whatever validates you in your own eyes is okay by me, I suppose, but don't expect others (like me) to understand when you claim personal credit for the actions of cabinet officers.
:rolleyes:
Right. Personal accomplishment. It was a goddamn shorthand way of saying The Democrats. I'm obviously NOT the President of the United States, and I don't need you to remind me of that.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 21, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
:rolleyes:
Right. Personal accomplishment. It was a goddamn shorthand way of saying The Democrats. I'm obviously NOT the President of the United States, and I don't need you to remind me of that.
:rolleyes: Learn to write the fucking language, if you want to avoid misunderstandings. I have no way of knowing that you mean "The Democrats" when you say "we," and even if I did as a general rule, the statement would have made no sense since no one kicked out Van Jones. I thought you might be claiming to be an Illuminati or something.
grumbler still rocks. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2009, 12:18:00 PMInteresting. Kristol's argument seems to me to be that he was a true conservative who once was simply confused and thought he was a liberal.
Yeah the whole Public Interest archive's fascinating. It's been put online by National Affairs which is a magazine that's trying to fill a similar role of writing engaged, policy-based conservative commentary and critique of politics. Which I think is essential when, it seems to me, most other conservative publications have given up that and replaced it with an attitude of cultural grievance.
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2009, 12:30:04 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 21, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
:rolleyes:
Right. Personal accomplishment. It was a goddamn shorthand way of saying The Democrats. I'm obviously NOT the President of the United States, and I don't need you to remind me of that.
:rolleyes: Learn to write the fucking language, if you want to avoid misunderstandings. I have no way of knowing that you mean "The Democrats" when you say "we," and even if I did as a general rule, the statement would have made no sense since no one kicked out Van Jones. I thought you might be claiming to be an Illuminati or something.
Glen Beck takes credit for it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 02:01:50 PM
Yeah the whole Public Interest archive's fascinating. It's been put online by National Affairs which is a magazine that's trying to fill a similar role of writing engaged, policy-based conservative commentary and critique of politics. Which I think is essential when, it seems to me, most other conservative publications have given up that and replaced it with an attitude of cultural grievance.
What most other conservative publications are you referring to? National Review was a pretty serious magazine when I used to read it. And the only other conservative publication I can think of is The Weekly Standard.
What was the one that was owned by Richard Mellon Scaife?