So sayeth this man. Is this DANGEROUS atmosphere the right is creating in which they are carrying guns to Obama rallies, dehumanizing him with racist imagery, and making statements about resorting to the bullet boxes if the ballot boxes don't yield results going to lead to tragedy for America? What says y'all?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1
blah, blah, blah.
It says friedman right in the link, so I didn't click it.
Nothing is more American than fried. :cool:
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
How would you describe it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
It was lacking in slides and kiddy pools.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2009, 05:11:38 PM
Cause you didn't really answer.
Maybe you can tell me what would qualify as a real answer then I'll decide if I want to play.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2009, 05:11:38 PM
Cause you didn't really answer.
Maybe you can tell me what would qualify as a real answer then I'll decide if I want to play.
I don't think unbogus is a real word.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2009, 05:11:38 PM
Cause you didn't really answer.
Maybe you can tell me what would qualify as a real answer then I'll decide if I want to play.
Remember the movie
Wargames. The only way to win is not to play.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
Curious choice of words, calling him sane, considering the RNC chair has responded by calling him a "nutjob."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27743.html
Quote"I mean, at the height of all this stuff on Bush and people complaining and protesting, and jumping up and down, you didn't have this kind of conversation,"
Ah the old 'because the Democrats are fucking this country up makes it not only justified but a requirement that we do the same'.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 07:11:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
Curious choice of words, calling him sane, considering the RNC chair has responded by calling him a "nutjob."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27743.html
Te be fair, the current RNC chairman is not exactly a fountain of wisdom, or even coherent thought.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 08:21:05 AM
Quote"I mean, at the height of all this stuff on Bush and people complaining and protesting, and jumping up and down, you didn't have this kind of conversation,"
Ah the old 'because the Democrats are fucking this country up makes it not only justified but a requirement that we do the same'.
But that's true. If one side is happy to use tactics that seem to have had some success, why wouldn't you respond in kind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
The project never reached the subdivision stage so I wouldn't call it a smashing success.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2009, 08:22:57 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 07:11:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Normally I think Friedman is a rare voice of sanity on the NYT op-ed pages, but how was Whitewater "bogus?"
Curious choice of words, calling him sane, considering the RNC chair has responded by calling him a "nutjob."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27743.html
Te be fair, the current RNC chairman is not exactly a fountain of wisdom, or even coherent thought.
He is the uncle of Mike Tyson's kids--who could have seen this coming?
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 08:30:57 AM
But that's true. If one side is happy to use tactics that seem to have had some success, why wouldn't you respond in kind?
That is entirely true but it has nothing to do with whether or not we are fostering a climate similar to 1995 Israel.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 08:21:05 AM
Quote"I mean, at the height of all this stuff on Bush and people complaining and protesting, and jumping up and down, you didn't have this kind of conversation,"
Ah the old 'because the Democrats are fucking this country up makes it not only justified but a requirement that we do the same'.
That is bullshit - the nutjobs on the left where saying that he was going to engineer a coup when his time was up. That is at least as crazy as anything the nutjobs on the right have been barking about.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2009, 09:33:07 AM
That is bullshit - the nutjobs on the left where saying that he was going to engineer a coup when his time was up. That is at least as crazy as anything the nutjobs on the right have been barking about.
That is absolutely and precisely what I am saying. I am glad we agree.
General Betrayus will bring the armies of the east back home and deal with the Bushhitler's enemies.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 08:21:05 AM
Quote"I mean, at the height of all this stuff on Bush and people complaining and protesting, and jumping up and down, you didn't have this kind of conversation,"
Ah the old 'because the Democrats are fucking this country up makes it not only justified but a requirement that we do the same'.
I think what he's saying is that 'even when the fringe Democrats were saying stuff equally crazy to what the fringe Republicans are saying now, we never accused the Democrats of encouraging assasination'
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 09:41:46 AM
I think what he's saying is that 'even when the fringe Democrats were saying stuff equally crazy to what the fringe Republicans are saying now, we never accused the Democrats of encouraging assasination'
We would have if they were supposedly bringing guns to Bush rallies because they are that crazy. The more people who start believing the bullshit the more dangerous things become IMO.
Perhaps though I misunderstood the article. I did not get that he was calling out the Republican party for doing this but rather the general atmosphere among the nutters and the Republicans not doing anything more to stop it (at least no more than the Democrats usually do).
And anyway people were calling the Democrats traitors and worse IIRC.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 09:41:46 AM
I think what he's saying is that 'even when the fringe Democrats were saying stuff equally crazy to what the fringe Republicans are saying now, we never accused the Democrats of encouraging assasination'
We would have if they were supposedly bringing guns to Bush rallies because they are that crazy. The more people who start believing the bullshit the more dangerous things become IMO.
That may well be true and it may well also be true that the Republican wackjobs are more actively dangerous than the Democratic wackjobs. However, his rhetorical point (whether he's factually correct or not) is that they aren't really different and so the current accusations ratchet up the partisan rancour for no good purpose.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 09:43:34 AM
And anyway people were calling the Democrats traitors and worse IIRC.
they are. Dirty little American VietCong.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 09:48:42 AM
That may well be true and it may well also be true that the Republican wackjobs are more actively dangerous than the Democratic wackjobs. However, his rhetorical point (whether he's factually correct or not) is that they aren't really different and so the current accusations ratchet up the partisan rancour for no good purpose.
Well the accusations are true...they just are not perhaps fairly aimed at the supporters of both parties. Though I think the Democratic wackjobs are rapidly becoming just as much a threat to kill the President as the Republican ones these days.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2009, 09:33:07 AM
That is bullshit - the nutjobs on the left where saying that he was going to engineer a coup when his time was up. That is at least as crazy as anything the nutjobs on the right have been barking about.
The nuttiest on the right have been speculating that the military might launch a coup to end the 'Obama problem'.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 09:40:34 AM
General Betrayus will bring the armies of the east back home and deal with the Bushhitler's enemies.
I actually had guy I know in the army said he hoped that would happen. :tinfoil:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 09:40:34 AM
General Betrayus will bring the armies of the east back home and deal with the Bushhitler's enemies.
I actually had guy I know in the army said he hoped that would happen. :tinfoil:
A bit of Sulla-like action would have been hilarious.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2009, 08:22:57 AM
Te be fair, the current RNC chairman is not exactly a fountain of wisdom, or even coherent thought.
That's racist code talk :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2009, 01:29:26 PM
The nuttiest on the right have been speculating that the military might launch a coup to end the 'Obama problem'.
Well generally I consider it rather inevitable that eventually the professional army will take control of our government...but I doubt anytime in my lifetime. It is just what has always happened with huge professional armies.
Speaking of Isreal, only 4% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israeli.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-01/a-white-house-of-self-hating-jews/?cid=hp:justposted1
Blacks hate Jews, duh.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 02:39:44 PM
Blacks hate Jews, duh.
... and the Falashas are just confused. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Speaking of Isreal, only 4% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israeli.
Meanwhile Al-Jazeera claims Obama is a Netanyahu puppet.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 04:11:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Speaking of Isreal, only 4% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israeli.
Meanwhile Al-Jazeera claims Obama is a Netanyahu puppet.
My own impression, for what it's worth:
Obama seeks to build bridges in the region by making gestures to the Arabs, but does not wish to harm his domestic support by putting actual pressure on Israel (now under the hard-liner Netanyahu). This pisses off the Israelis, who see the "gestures" as symbolic of Obama's basic dislike of them, while it does nothing to appease the Arabs, who see the lack of pressure on Israel as 'same shit as Bush, different package'.
When will Israel learn we hate "Nazis" - doesn't matter if they wear the swastika or the star of david. Start acting like a civilized nation and we'll start treating you like one!
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 04:16:55 PM
My own impression, for what it's worth:
Obama seeks to build bridges in the region by making gestures to the Arabs, but does not wish to harm his domestic support by putting actual pressure on Israel (now under the hard-liner Netanyahu). This pisses off the Israelis, who see the "gestures" as symbolic of Obama's basic dislike of them, while it does nothing to appease the Arabs, who see the lack of pressure on Israel as 'same shit as Bush, different package'.
Yeah I basically agree. The Middle East is great because no matter what you do there will be somebody who hates you.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 04:16:55 PM
My own impression, for what it's worth:
Obama seeks to build bridges in the region by making gestures to the Arabs, but does not wish to harm his domestic support by putting actual pressure on Israel (now under the hard-liner Netanyahu). This pisses off the Israelis, who see the "gestures" as symbolic of Obama's basic dislike of them, while it does nothing to appease the Arabs, who see the lack of pressure on Israel as 'same shit as Bush, different package'.
I think there is more to it than that. I remember coming across a Jewish newspaper that had a bunch of experts rating presidential candidates on a "good for Israel" scale. It was pretty early in the process, so there were more than a dozen candidates to rate from both parties. Those ratings were updated weekly. Giuliani obviously scored at the top, while Obama was consistently dead last. That was long before he was in position to make any kind of overtures to the Arabs.
Here it is, with a history of updates. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2009, 04:37:00 PM
Here it is, with a history of updates. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml
Obama was not rated dead last among the dozens of early contenders: there were plently ranked lower, including this fellow:
QuoteRuss Feingold The Jewish Senator for Wisconsin sponsored an act calling for the American embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. LAST SCORE: 5
Note - a Jew who wanted to move the embassy to Jerusalem ranked
lower than Obama.
Note as well:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012788.html
Obama rated lower than McCain by panel - but it was very close.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2009, 04:37:00 PM
Here it is, with a history of updates. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml
Obama was not rated dead last among the dozens of early contenders: there were plently ranked lower, including this fellow:
QuoteRuss Feingold The Jewish Senator for Wisconsin sponsored an act calling for the American embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. LAST SCORE: 5
Note - a Jew who wanted to move the embassy to Jerusalem ranked lower than Obama.
Note as well:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012788.html
Obama rated lower than McCain by panel - but it was very close.
I didn't read every update, just the one starting from 2007. I was going by memory in my first post, so my recollection is not perfect. However, if you view all the updates from 2007 on, Obama is at the bottom or near the bottom of every one.