Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236685
QuoteEight Reasons America Is On Edge
Howard Fineman
Fifteen years after the Oklahoma City bombing, the parallels to today are striking.
Apr 20, 2010
On the banks of the Potomac River, guys carrying guns gathered in a Virginia park to proudly advertise the state's "open carry" law. Their compatriots gathered on the National Mall to honor the Second Amendment. They carried signs warning "Don't Tread on Me". On cable TV, Republicans speak about a "gangster government" and the need to "reload"—all innocent discourse, they claim—while on another channel, Democrats warn that such talk could lead to violence. And in Oklahoma City this week, families of those who died in the 1995 bombing are remembering their loved ones. People across the country wonder if, or when, it could all happen again.
The country is once again on edge: We worry about violence. We worry about extremism. We worry about a government run amok. We worry that the frictional energy that makes us grow—the power of never-ending argument—will in these times tear us apart, perhaps with violent results. We have these periodic nervous breakdowns. And a lot of people think we are on the verge of another. It's as if the center might not hold.
Why are we on this precipice—again? Here are eight reasons.
Legitimacy. Never in modern times have Americans been more bitterly skeptical of their political and business leaders—in other words, the people in charge. Nearly four in five don't trust the federal government, according to Pew. A recent Bloomberg poll shows that most Americans have a negative view of Wall Street, big banks, and insurance companies. Approval ratings for Congress are the lowest on record. President Obama—once stratospherically popular—is now under 50 percent. Skepticism of leaders is an American tradition, even an obligation. But this level of anger is corrosive. It can leave us feeling rudderless.
Economy. We have just been through, and have not really escaped, the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. It would be extraordinary if people weren't volatile and angry. Tens of millions of Americans feel that they have lost control of their own destiny. And worse, they are confused as to the cause. Explanations are complex, impenetrable, and unsettling: if there is a new global capital economy, what is it really? And if we can do nothing as a country to control it, of what use is orderly government?
Presidency. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, many Democratic liberals viewed him as an out-of-the-mainstream figure, and some reacted with rhetoric that bordered on the hysterical. Obama is seen as the mirror image by his opponents. Even though his proposals are hardly radical—they amount to little more than an updated version of the regulatory state—his enemies view him and them as beyond the normal, as some kind of a conspiracy against the essential character of the country. This view is more widespread than people inside the Beltway know or understand.
Politics. Democrats who are startled by the deepening reaction to Obama forget how different he is from the post-'60s run of Democratic presidents, even aside from his race, ethnicity, and name. He is a big-city, Northern liberal lawyer with two Ivy League degrees, a background in community organizing and academia, and no private sector (or even real courtroom) experience. How did they think the nonblue regions of the country were eventually going to react to Obama, once the generalized frustration with George W. Bush faded? I wish I could say that the sublime inaugural ceremony on the Mall in January 2009 was a harbinger of a new country, with new attitudes, but it wasn't. There were more than a million people there, but the Other America stayed away.
9/11 Posttraumatic Stress. In some ways we've never really dealt with the full implications and impact of the 9/11 attacks. But like a long buried personal catastrophe they will keep popping up at odd times and in odd ways. We are quicker to fear, quicker to anger, quicker to accuse. We are under much more government surveillance than before: more cameras, more wiretaps, more e-mail sweeps. We don't even know how much scrutiny there really is, which is of course what the authorities want. But it can put us on edge. We can kill terrorists abroad, and do, but now we are told that a new generation of terrorists will be homegrown.
GOP rhetoric. In the 1960s, it was the left that engaged in the incendiary rhetoric; the nonviolent protests at time veered off into ends-justifies-means nightmares. Now, with a president in power they regard as a stranger and a usurper, the right is running the same risk. Rep. Michelle Bachmann calls Obama "gangster government." Rush Limbaugh talks about "the Regime." Sarah Palin tells her supporters to "reload." Republicans think this is shrewd, that it will amp up turnout. Others, including Bill Clinton, fear a repeat of what happened during his time.
Obama's obliviousness. The president has no real sense of how much fear he evokes in some places and among some groups, because he doesn't really know them. Knowledge won't necessarily help. It didn't help Bill Clinton enough to avoid impeachment. But Clinton knew to tread carefully on matters of political symbolism. He knew he had to make the effort to reach, say, rural or Southern or conservative evangelical culture. Obama doesn't really know the language, and he hasn't really tried to bust through the wall the GOP has built around those constituencies since the election.
Media. We love conflict. We love trauma. We love pictures of militia guys carrying guns. We love outrageous tea-party rhetoric. We love to scare ourselves—and the rest of the country—silly. We are doing a pretty effective job of it right now.
© 2010
Perhaps if he changed his name and dyed his skin.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 12:10:02 AM
Perhaps if he changed his name and dyed his skin.
You know, playing the race card every other thread is easy, and I imagine it is pretty much standard tactics when it comes to the Obama Fan Club, but it really makes you look like something of an idiot.
It's not like the Republitards who hate him as irrationally as you slobber over him would think he was great if only he weren't black. These are the same people who hat Bill and Hillary Clinton, who are as white as white can be.
It isn't about race, except to the extent that his fanbois try to excuse any criticism of him by playing up his race. Thank god he doesn't think his race is nearly as important as you do.
There a significant numbers of GOPtards that think Obama is in fact a Kenyan.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 08:31:44 AM
There a significant numbers of GOPtards that think Obama is in fact a Kenyan.
[Berkut Obtuseness]What in God's name does that have to do with RACE?![/Berkut Obtuseness]
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 08:31:44 AM
There a significant numbers of GOPtards that think Obama is in fact a Kenyan.
Yeah, so I hear - however, the only examples I see of people going on about race are people like you, so apparently you are not any better than these supposed (and mostly imaginary) racist GOPtards, and since you are here and they are not, *you* are the one who ends up looking like the idiot who cannot mention Obama without bleating about his being black. Over and over and over again, and in direct response to criticism that does not in any way mention his race.
"Obama health care plan sucks!"
"OMG YOU ARE TEH RACIST!"
Let it go already. We get it - he is black. We know.
Yeah, Berkut's right. The hardcore conservative types had every bit as much irrational hatred for Clinton as they do for Hussein.
I agree. I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways. The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept any Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.
Race is the only issue. These southern bubbas love moderate socialism and will defend it to the last drop of peasant blood, but only when it's lead by a white man (Bush/Reagan/LBJ/FDR/etc).
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:14:14 AM
I agree. I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways. The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.
FYP.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:14:14 AM
I agree. I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways. The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.
FYP.
Take your government hands off my Medicare! The epitome of modern conservatism.
They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:14:14 AM
I agree. I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways. The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.
FYP.
As usual, I think your middle of the road approach is misplaced. The denial of legitimacy of the opposing side is much more widespread and intense on one side of the political spectrum compared to the other. Note that I'm not talking about blanket criticism, I'm talking about just basic acknowledgement that the party has the right to be in power after winning elections.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:48:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:14:14 AM
I agree. I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways. The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.
FYP.
As usual, I think your middle of the road approach is misplaced. The denial of legitimacy of the opposing side is much more widespread and intense on one side of the political spectrum compared to the other. Note that I'm not talking about blanket criticism, I'm talking about just basic acknowledgement that the party has the right to be in power after winning elections.
George Bush stole the election in Ohio! DIEBOLD!!111111111111
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:48:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 09:14:14 AM
I agree. I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways. The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.
FYP.
As usual, I think your middle of the road approach is misplaced. The denial of legitimacy of the opposing side is much more widespread and intense on one side of the political spectrum compared to the other. Note that I'm not talking about blanket criticism, I'm talking about just basic acknowledgement that the party has the right to be in power after winning elections.
Well, lets see.
Plenty of nutbars on the left said Bush "stole" the election in Florida, right? And some not so nutbar, in fact?
And I don't recall any on the right claiming that Clinton, for example, did not actually win the election, even if they thought he was the anti-christ. Because there really weren't any grounds to make such a claim, silly or otherwise. Similarly nobody questioned Bush Sr. right to be president either, that I can recall - again, not really anything there to base it on.
So I think it is perfectly situational - if the circumstance presents itself, the nutjobs on either side will find some excuse for claiming the other guy is not legit. And the side in power will then pretend like the nutbars on the other side actually represent the bulk of the other party, and we will hear more about them than their marginal representation actually warrants. Which I actually think is the more odious tactic, since it comes from (presumably) the non-crazy elements who should know better.
So no - I don't think my "middle of the road" approach is at all misplaced. I don't even think it is a "middle of the road" approach to begin with - just recognizing that there isn't anything inherently "special" about the right that makes them more prone to the Crazies or anything special about the left that makes them less prone.
The data suggests in fact that it is perfectly consistent, and simple common sense would lead one to think that crazy is pretty well spread out over the political spectrum.
The 2000 election was very unfortunate, and it would raise significant legitimacy questions regardless of who was declared the winner. In fact, in was just a very bizarre event, and would prove to be even more bizarre in hindsight given how it influenced future events. As for 2004 election, did anyone other than a very limited segment of the nuts on the left ever seriously question the election results?
Quote from: Fate on April 21, 2010, 09:34:24 AM
They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.
Yeah, DG, the left never makes crazy talk. Gosh no.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 21, 2010, 09:34:24 AM
They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.
Yeah, DG, the left never makes crazy talk. Gosh no.
How else do you explain it? These crackers love their government socialism except when it's a nigger at the helm. Then all of the sudden they become Goldwater racists reborn.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 21, 2010, 09:34:24 AM
They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.
Yeah, DG, the left never makes crazy talk. Gosh no.
Did I say "never"? What's that fallacy called again? I think I said "more widespread and intense", not "exclusive".
Just curious Hans I mean Berkut, what percentage of Americans do you think don't like black people?
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:55:48 AM
Well, lets see.
Plenty of nutbars on the left said Bush "stole" the election in Florida, right? And some not so nutbar, in fact?
And I don't recall any on the right claiming that Clinton, for example, did not actually win the election, even if they thought he was the anti-christ. Because there really weren't any grounds to make such a claim, silly or otherwise. Similarly nobody questioned Bush Sr. right to be president either, that I can recall - again, not really anything there to base it on.
So I think it is perfectly situational - if the circumstance presents itself, the nutjobs on either side will find some excuse for claiming the other guy is not legit. And the side in power will then pretend like the nutbars on the other side actually represent the bulk of the other party, and we will hear more about them than their marginal representation actually warrants. Which I actually think is the more odious tactic, since it comes from (presumably) the non-crazy elements who should know better.
So no - I don't think my "middle of the road" approach is at all misplaced. I don't even think it is a "middle of the road" approach to begin with - just recognizing that there isn't anything inherently "special" about the right that makes them more prone to the Crazies or anything special about the left that makes them less prone.
The data suggests in fact that it is perfectly consistent, and simple common sense would lead one to think that crazy is pretty well spread out over the political spectrum.
Nobody questioned that Clinton won the elections. However, some questioned whether he was a murderer, for example. Then, later on, they just tried to remove him directly.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.
Heck Clinton triangulated the fuck out of Democratic Party principals but it made no difference to that part of the electorate. There is nothing a Democrat can do to make those people not go apeshit, their hysteria is not based on facts. Just like Bush could have declared 'Karl Marx Day' and the wacky left was still going to hate him.
This thread is an example of why we can't have nice things.
Curious thing is, Berkut really enjoyed banging the race drum back in 2008. He love to quote Rev. Write. GOD DAMN AMERICA! I asked him on this board if he thought Obama was a racist and he said he didn't know. But that didn't stop him from bring up the Rev Write thing every chance he got.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 10:06:26 AM
Just curious Hans I mean Berkut, what percentage of Americans do you think don't like black people?
It's only that one county in Mississippi that's refusing to integrate 56 years after Brown v Board. I don't think there is evidence of any other Republican racists in the country.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.
Heck Clinton triangulated the fuck out of Democratic Party principals but it made no difference to that part of the electorate. There is nothing a Democrat can do to make those people not go apeshit, their hysteria is not based on facts. Just like Bush could have declared 'Karl Marx Day' and the wacky left was still going to hate him.
Was there wide spread national protests to George Bush in his first year in office?
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:55:48 AM
Well, lets see.
Plenty of nutbars on the left said Bush "stole" the election in Florida, right? And some not so nutbar, in fact?
And I don't recall any on the right claiming that Clinton, for example, did not actually win the election, even if they thought he was the anti-christ. Because there really weren't any grounds to make such a claim, silly or otherwise. Similarly nobody questioned Bush Sr. right to be president either, that I can recall - again, not really anything there to base it on.
So I think it is perfectly situational - if the circumstance presents itself, the nutjobs on either side will find some excuse for claiming the other guy is not legit. And the side in power will then pretend like the nutbars on the other side actually represent the bulk of the other party, and we will hear more about them than their marginal representation actually warrants. Which I actually think is the more odious tactic, since it comes from (presumably) the non-crazy elements who should know better.
So no - I don't think my "middle of the road" approach is at all misplaced. I don't even think it is a "middle of the road" approach to begin with - just recognizing that there isn't anything inherently "special" about the right that makes them more prone to the Crazies or anything special about the left that makes them less prone.
The data suggests in fact that it is perfectly consistent, and simple common sense would lead one to think that crazy is pretty well spread out over the political spectrum.
Nobody questioned that Clinton won the elections. However, some questioned whether he was a murderer, for example. Then, later on, they just tried to remove him directly.
But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about whether the president is legitimate. Of course they tried to remove him - but that isn't the point. You can't bring that up to support your claim that one side questions the legitimacy more than another.
And plenty of the left questioned whether Bush was a murderer. Or war criminal. And plenty on the left asked that he be impeached. So what?
Hell, we even had examples of people here on Languish try to accuse his freaking wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teen.
Sorry, but I think your claim that the right is especially apt to this is rather stunningly poorly evidenced. The only thing your argument is showing is that you are not very good at not falling into the same party straighjackets you are accusing the loony right of being constrained by.
And like I said, the fact that the supposedly non-loony party elements invariably play up the crazies on the other side is much more odious than the marginal crazies are anyway.
Certainly both sides let their crazies dominate that much more when the other party is in power though - just look at Michael Moore and the Moveon nuts, that are now pretty much ignored since the moderate Dems are calling the shots. It is the exact same thing - now the Republicans are out of power, so their nutbars are that much more vocal, and the Dems are playing them up the same way the Republicans played up Moveon and their whackjobs.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 10:11:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.
Heck Clinton triangulated the fuck out of Democratic Party principals but it made no difference to that part of the electorate. There is nothing a Democrat can do to make those people not go apeshit, their hysteria is not based on facts. Just like Bush could have declared 'Karl Marx Day' and the wacky left was still going to hate him.
Was there wide spread national protests to George Bush in his first year in office?
To be fair, we have no way of knowing that. In a lot of ways, 9/11 short-circuited a lot of political processes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 08:55:48 AM
Yeah, Berkut's right. The hardcore conservative types had every bit as much irrational hatred for Clinton as they do for Hussein.
Yep. This is about partisanship and the idiocy that comes with it.
I do sorta love how the morons and the idiots always get names like 'hardcore' and 'fundamentalist' and such that bizarrely suggests the lowest common denominator are somehow the truest of the true and real representatives of whatever group they embarrass by being a part of.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:14:32 AM
But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about whether the president is legitimate. Of course they tried to remove him - but that isn't the point. You can't bring that up to support your claim that one side questions the legitimacy more than another.
You're defining legitimacy far too narrowly. Claiming that someone is a murderer is an attack on someone's legitimacy. Obviously a murderer can't be a US president. Claiming that someone is trying to dismantle the country is also an attack on legitimacy. Obviously someone who tries to destroy US can't be a US president.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 08:55:48 AM
Yeah, Berkut's right. The hardcore conservative types had every bit as much irrational hatred for Clinton as they do for Hussein.
Yep. This is about partisanship and the idiocy that comes with it.
I do sorta love how the morons and the idiots always get names like 'hardcore' and 'fundamentalist' and such that bizarrely suggests the lowest common denominator are somehow the truest of the true and real representatives of whatever group they embarrass by being a part of.
But partisanship is good for us! The Atlantic says so! :contract:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/04/the-case-for-partisanship/6700/
There is nothing inherently wrong about parties, IMO. It makes sense for people with shared ideals to band together. Where it gets destructive is when partisan competition turns into total war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 10:23:31 AM
But partisanship is good for us! The Atlantic says so! :contract:
If God wanted me to be partisan he would have provided me with a party to support.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 10:30:38 AM
There is nothing inherently wrong about parties, IMO. It makes sense for people with shared ideals to band together. Where it gets destructive is when partisan competition turns into total war.
Well this is sorta the issue. It is one thing to have different political opinions out there it is another when people start going down the 'Better Hitler than Blum' route.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 10:20:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:14:32 AM
But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about whether the president is legitimate. Of course they tried to remove him - but that isn't the point. You can't bring that up to support your claim that one side questions the legitimacy more than another.
You're defining legitimacy far too narrowly. Claiming that someone is a murderer is an attack on someone's legitimacy. Obviously a murderer can't be a US president. Claiming that someone is trying to dismantle the country is also an attack on legitimacy. Obviously someone who tries to destroy US can't be a US president.
Uhh, *you* are suddenly defining it much too broadly - although oddly enough that crushes your argument that somehow this is a uniquely or predominately right wing phenomenon, since now we can basically show that every single president had their legitimacy attacked by the other party, since both parties always have some crazies who claim the other parties president is trying to destroy the country.
Hell, if we are going to move the goalposts from talking about people claiming Obama is not legitimate because he is actually not legally allowed to be president to someone simply claiming the president is doing a terrible job and is destroying the country, we don't even need to limit ourselves to talking about the nutbars anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 10:30:38 AM
There is nothing inherently wrong about parties, IMO. It makes sense for people with shared ideals to band together. Where it gets destructive is when partisan competition turns into total war.
No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:49:35 AM
No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.
QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 10:57:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:49:35 AM
No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.
QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.
I find it much more annoying when people refuse to support something simply because it is an idea put forth by the other party. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Especially when it is something that isn't even relevant to the core of what it means to be a member of a party anyway.
Dem opposition to the Iraq War, for example. Or republican opposition to the Kosovo involvement. Almost completely motivated, IMO, by the fact that it was under the other parties President, rather than any principles or practical considerations.
Funny, the screaming and wailing to get the troops out immediately sure did disappear the moment Bush was out of office.
That kind of partisanship is much more damaging than anything else, IMO, since it actually influences national policy based on nothing that has anything to do with the merits of the situation at hand, but simply a matter of "get the other guy".
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 10:57:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:49:35 AM
No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.
QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.
The problem with such a presentation is that it can take diverging, but legitimate, political positions, and portray one as biased and irrational, thus taking us back to square one.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 10:57:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:49:35 AM
No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.
QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.
I find it much more annoying when people refuse to support something simply because it is an idea put forth by the other party. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Especially when it is something that isn't even relevant to the core of what it means to be a member of a party anyway.
Dem opposition to the Iraq War, for example. Or republican opposition to the Kosovo involvement. Almost completely motivated, IMO, by the fact that it was under the other parties President, rather than any principles or practical considerations.
Funny, the screaming and wailing to get the troops out immediately sure did disappear the moment Bush was out of office.
That kind of partisanship is much more damaging than anything else, IMO, since it actually influences national policy based on nothing that has anything to do with the merits of the situation at hand, but simply a matter of "get the other guy".
Give be a break. You're really comparing Kosovo to the Iraq War. Why the fuck did you vote for Obama? You neocons are sure confusing. :lol:
I'm really proud of this forum some days. Except for one-slip-up by Berkut, nobody has responded to Fate at all in this thread. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:46:44 AM
I'm really proud of this forum some days. Except for one-slip-up by Berkut, nobody has responded to Fate at all in this thread. :hug:
I did, but at least I didn't quote him.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 21, 2010, 10:08:40 AM
This thread is an example of why we can't have nice things.
Once again Ed wins the thread :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:46:44 AM
I'm really proud of this forum some days. Except for one-slip-up by Berkut, nobody has responded to Fate at all in this thread. :hug:
I did not!
Did I?
You quoted Fate but your response was to Guller.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 12:27:07 PM
You quoted Fate but your response was to Guller.
:nelson:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 12:27:07 PM
You quoted Fate but your response was to Guller.
Oh right, I used him as a living example that yes, the left has their share of crazies who like to use terms like "nigger" as well. Not really a violation of the spirit of the Fate rule, I think.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 01:35:30 PM
Not really a violation of the spirit of the Fate rule, I think.
Slippery, meet slope.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:23:09 AM
It isn't about race, except to the extent that his fanbois try to excuse any criticism of him by playing up his race. Thank god he doesn't think his race is nearly as important as you do.
I think at least some of it - among the guys with 'Don't Tread on Me' signs, carrying guns - is about race and among some of the tea partiers too I imagine. I think saying race has nothing to do is absurd. It would be truly remarkable, post-racial America's immaculate conception. But I don't equate those guys with general opposition or unhappiness with Obama and I didn't ever equate the extreme with opposition to Bush either.
There is a moderate sensible opposition that was tarred with 'MoveOnism' (not that many people here cared) and ignored. I think that's what some on the left are trying to do now with their opposition.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2010, 03:26:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:23:09 AM
It isn't about race, except to the extent that his fanbois try to excuse any criticism of him by playing up his race. Thank god he doesn't think his race is nearly as important as you do.
I think at least some of it - among the guys with 'Don't Tread on Me' signs, carrying guns - is about race and among some of the tea partiers too I imagine. I think saying race has nothing to do is absurd. It would be truly remarkable, post-racial America's immaculate conception. But I don't equate those guys with general opposition or unhappiness with Obama and I didn't ever equate the extreme with opposition to Bush either.
I was specifically remarking about Raz claim that the criticism leveled in the OP were all about race. They did not mention his race at all.
And like I pointed out - saying the criticism of Obama is racial is missing the point. Is there some facet of racism? I am sure there is - is it important? Probably not - had Obama been white, but otherwise identical, he would still be vilified by the Tea Partyers out there. Being a nice white boy didn't get Clinton a free pass from the right wing crazies.
Quote
There is a moderate sensible opposition that was tarred with 'MoveOnism' (not that many people here cared) and ignored. I think that's what some on the left are trying to do now with their opposition.
Of course - it is what both sides do. In fact, I suspect that there are plenty of Dems who get down on their knees every night and thank whatever god they worship that there are some crazies out there they can respond to, so they can ignore the actual debate.
Which is precisely the point of responses like Razs. Simply dismiss any criticism as being about race. Play that race card, and play it again and again and again.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 03:41:27 PM
And like I pointed out - saying the criticism of Obama is racial is missing the point. Is there some facet of racism? I am sure there is - is it important? Probably not - had Obama been white, but otherwise identical, he would still be vilified by the Tea Partyers out there. Being a nice white boy didn't get Clinton a free pass from the right wing crazies.
Clinton wasn't a nice white boy. He was a draft-dodging pot-smoking, hippy with a dash of corruption - which were cultural things that could touch off a reaction as strongly as race, in my opinion (I think Bush's 'Jesus is my favourite philosopher' is the sort-of counterpoint).
Plus I think there's an attitude of 'where's our country gone?' to a lot of the more extreme protests which to me seems like what you'd expect from some people who're just not terribly comfortable with a black President.
QuoteOf course - it is what both sides do. In fact, I suspect that there are plenty of Dems who get down on their knees every night and thank whatever god they worship that there are some crazies out there they can respond to, so they can ignore the actual debate.
Which is precisely the point of responses like Razs. Simply dismiss any criticism as being about race. Play that race card, and play it again and again and again.
Okay. But this doesn't mean we get to say there's no racial element (we don't get to play the 'playing the race card' card, as it were) and dismiss that without thought. Because that's as lazy, in its way, as what Raz says.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2010, 03:26:30 PM
I think at least some of it - among the guys with 'Don't Tread on Me' signs, carrying guns - is about race and among some of the tea partiers too I imagine.
Like this guy. :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_gcA0ZuKGkI8%2FSo162KSVKsI%2FAAAAAAAADQw%2F3fNkRiCpFHI%2Fs400%2Fblack%2Bprotester%2Bwith%2Bgun.jpg&hash=502e123d197f57e43251066bdd81b3bb8181b766)
Yeah, I don't really think so, Shelf. This shit is mostly about economics. If there are any race-haters, it's just fringe dudes trying to piggyback on the events the same way that commie party supported by North Korea does at Obama rallies and WTO protests.
If Berkut is going to be prissy and ignore me he could have at least did it at the beginning of the thread and prevented the whole argument.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2010, 04:19:27 PM
This shit is mostly about economics.
I thought this was mostly about not paying taxes. :huh:
Incidentally, what I don't get is why so many of these teaparty types seem to look back to the past as some sort of tax eldorado? I mean, in 1960s, wasn't the highest tax bracket in its 80%s?
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 05:10:55 PM
Incidentally, what I don't get is why so many of these teaparty types seem to look back to the past as some sort of tax eldorado? I mean, in 1960s, wasn't the highest tax bracket in its 80%s?
They're looking farther in the past than that, before 1913 to be exact. Gilded Age was a wonderful time in their minds.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 10:10:16 AM
Curious thing is, Berkut really enjoyed banging the race drum back in 2008. He love to quote Rev. Write. GOD DAMN AMERICA! I asked him on this board if he thought Obama was a racist and he said he didn't know. But that didn't stop him from bring up the Rev Write thing every chance he got.
How the hell is that banging the race drum? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 10:10:16 AM
Curious thing is, Berkut really enjoyed banging the race drum back in 2008. He love to quote Rev. Write. GOD DAMN AMERICA! I asked him on this board if he thought Obama was a racist and he said he didn't know. But that didn't stop him from bring up the Rev Write thing every chance he got.
How the hell is that banging the race drum? :huh:
Obama is a racist.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2010, 05:14:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 05:10:55 PM
Incidentally, what I don't get is why so many of these teaparty types seem to look back to the past as some sort of tax eldorado? I mean, in 1960s, wasn't the highest tax bracket in its 80%s?
They're looking farther in the past than that, before 1913 to be exact. Gilded Age was a wonderful time in their minds.
Would you like some more rat hair with your rancid canned meat? The funny thing is, there were lots of regulations and tariffs and government involved in business then too.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 06:08:17 PM
Obama is a racist.
I think "I don't know" is a pretty reasonable answer. I don't necessarily think Obama hates white people, but given that he was a community activist for most of his adult life, it's possible that he favors blacks over others.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 06:34:43 PM
I think "I don't know" is a pretty reasonable answer. I don't necessarily think Obama hates white people, but given that he was a community activist for most of his adult life, it's possible that he favors blacks over others.
Do you think it's possible Bush favored whites over others?
I wonder who I favor. :hmm:
Quote from: PDH on April 21, 2010, 06:48:19 PM
Snobs?
Nah. I think it is sassy black women...especially if they got junk in the trunk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 10:10:16 AM
Curious thing is, Berkut really enjoyed banging the race drum back in 2008. He love to quote Rev. Write. GOD DAMN AMERICA! I asked him on this board if he thought Obama was a racist and he said he didn't know. But that didn't stop him from bring up the Rev Write thing every chance he got.
How the hell is that banging the race drum? :huh:
Fate/Raz rule, remember?
Besides, it was racist to always talk about Rev. Write and completely ignore Father Read and Rabbi 'Rithmatic..
Settle down gramps. You are mistaking me for someone else.
He's tired of all the age jokes, so he's going to ignore half of the forum.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 07:24:02 PM
He's tired of all the age jokes, so he's going to ignore half of the forum.
Probably. Though I bet he was flattered when Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner based a skit on him and made him younger.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2010, 06:44:33 PM
Do you think it's possible Bush favored whites over others?
Sure, it's possible. Can't think of any evidence, but it's possible.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 09:43:37 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2010, 06:44:33 PM
Do you think it's possible Bush favored whites over others?
Sure, it's possible. Can't think of any evidence, but it's possible.
City of New Orleans.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 09:43:37 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2010, 06:44:33 PM
Do you think it's possible Bush favored whites over others?
Sure, it's possible. Can't think of any evidence, but it's possible.
Can you think of any evidence that Obama favors blacks over others?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2010, 01:09:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 09:43:37 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2010, 06:44:33 PM
Do you think it's possible Bush favored whites over others?
Sure, it's possible. Can't think of any evidence, but it's possible.
City of New Orleans.
:tinfoil:
I found out that smilie is named after me.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2010, 04:19:27 PM
Yeah, I don't really think so, Shelf. This shit is mostly about economics. If there are any race-haters, it's just fringe dudes trying to piggyback on the events the same way that commie party supported by North Korea does at Obama rallies and WTO protests.
If it was about economics it would have started some time in the Bush Administration, at the very least in October. And I reject entirely that the tea partiers are mostly about economics I've watched a few speeches at tea parties. The biggest lines are anti-abortion and foreign policy. Economics was the catalyst of a far wider movement.
Though of course as I've said I don't think they're all racists but that is an element of the protests. This seems to me like left-wingers denying that anti-Americanism played a part in the anti-war protests in the run up to Iraq.
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2010, 01:35:58 AM
Can you think of any evidence that Obama favors blacks over others?
His entire time as a community organizer.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 02:42:28 PM
If it was about economics it would have started some time in the Bush Administration, at the very least in October.
The whole thing started in response to the TARP bill Bush signed.
QuoteAnd I reject entirely that the tea partiers are mostly about economics I've watched a few speeches at tea parties. The biggest lines are anti-abortion and foreign policy. Economics was the catalyst of a far wider movement.
I think you're seeing what you want to see. The core of the movement has always been economic libertarian in nature. The rallies didn't spike around April 15th out of sheer coincidence. There are others trying to piggy-back on the movement with their own pet issues, as MiM mentioned, and that is providing some fodder for critics.
Also, it is not really a unified movement, so individual rallies are going to vary to some degree.
Personally, I think the movement proved its point long ago & needs to redirect its energy. I'm not really a fan of permanent protest movements.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2010, 04:20:29 PM
The whole thing started in response to the TARP bill Bush signed.
The reaction, perhaps, started then. The protests started after Obama came in and the identification of Tea Partiers starting after Rick Santelli's tantrum.
QuoteI think you're seeing what you want to see. The core of the movement has always been economic libertarian in nature. The rallies didn't spike around April 15th out of sheer coincidence. There are others trying to piggy-back on the movement with their own pet issues, as MiM mentioned, and that is providing some fodder for critics.
Also, it is not really a unified movement, so individual rallies are going to vary to some degree.
I agree on the latter point. But I think part of its free-wheeling nature is that it's become a movement for wider conservative dissatisfaction and anger. So it's not just economics. As I say certainly at the 'Tea Party Conference' which was an attempt to make money on the movement and, to some extent, to make it cohere. There the big issues were social and foreign policy, not economics. So I don't think you can clarify an un-unified, disparate movement as being essentially economically libertarian.
QuotePersonally, I think the movement proved its point long ago & needs to redirect its energy. I'm not really a fan of permanent protest movements.
I like protests and I think they're generally rather useful. The danger is that they become perceived as being dominated by their most extreme elements - which is always a danger (and an easy target) with protest movements.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate?
You're an idiot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2010, 05:05:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate?
You're an idiot.
For disagreeing with Fineman?
Oh, and for the record--since I don't feel like addressing every post in this thread--the recent phenomenons of teabaggers and right wing nuts are all about racism and sore losing.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 21, 2010, 10:08:40 AM
This thread is an example of why we can't have nice things.
Goddamned right you can't. You'd just fuck it up and put 22" spinners on it anyway.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 07:24:02 PM
He's tired of all the age jokes, so he's going to ignore half of the forum.
I am? :huh: Didn't know that. I didn't know I was going to ignore anyone, for that matter (DGuller is the ostentatious ignorer).
The "grumbler is so old he was a _____ at the battle of _____" meme is funny. It doesn't bother me a bit (just like the "tackling" meme shouldn't bother Marti) . Some people run memes into the ground, but that also doesn't bother me.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2010, 07:04:11 PM
Fate/Raz rule, remember?
Actually it's the Fate-Alexandru Rule. Raz sometimes says silly shit, but so do a lot of people. I have never even considered adding Raz to Teh Rule(TM).
Fate and Alexandru are Ruled because they both contribute to political threads (or really any thread involving controversial topics like politics, race, religion, etc.) mainly by adding throwaway comments that aren't funny, insightful, or of any use to anyone. Some people still feed their trolling for some strange reason, but I'm just trying to help all y'all bitches out by continually pointing it out (my latest tactic is to post pictures of television static, since that's what their posting equates to in my mind).
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 06:40:03 AM
I am? :huh: Didn't know that. I didn't know I was going to ignore anyone, for that matter (DGuller is the ostentatious ignorer).
You do ignore Fate, well kinda. I was just fishing for a reason you might want to extend the same treatment to Raz, that's all.
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2010, 07:35:52 AM
Actually it's the Fate-Alexandru Rule. Raz sometimes says silly shit, but so do a lot of people. I have never even considered adding Raz to Teh Rule(TM).
Alexandru's trolls are amusing. Raz's trolls are painfully unfunny and dumb, much like Fate's. Raz isn't trolling all of the time, unlike Fate. Still, he is trolling often enough that the rule applies unless one is specifically responding to a humorous or insightful comment (which his troll about Berkut "beating the racism drum" was not).
If Alexandru's trolls are amusing, then they're not amusing for the reason he might think they are. :) I also don't think Raz trolls all that often, recognizing that "often" is a relative term. I think all of us troll sometimes--I know I do.
With Fate though (and we seem to be in agreement 100% on him), I feel like reading his posts is similar to conversing with my dad about politics. My dad is ultra-right wing and basically parrots Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. He is incapable of having intelligent discourse about politics, because all he does is repeat catch phrases and buzz words, and the second you try to question him he gets deeply offended and walks out of the room or says "ok, I'm an idiot" and his feelings get all hurt.
Fate actually seems ok in non-political threads, but as soon as thread comes up that is about religion, race, politics, etc. Fate becomes robotically predictable and an annoyance, like my dad does in these conversations.
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2010, 08:06:14 AM
If Alexandru's trolls are amusing, then they're not amusing for the reason he might think they are. :) I also don't think Raz trolls all that often, recognizing that "often" is a relative term. I think all of us troll sometimes--I know I do.
Alex's "trolls" are amusing because they are not really trolls, IMO. I think he believes what he is saying. I think that this is also true of lettuce. I don't believe this about Raz or Fate. They are saying things they don't believe because they are seeking to stir up some shit.
Everyone trolls, even JR. No-one except Fate trolls as much as Raz, though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2010, 07:53:28 AM
You do ignore Fate, well kinda. I was just fishing for a reason you might want to extend the same treatment to Raz, that's all.
I ignore trolls, that is true. But that is ignoring posts, not posters.
I don't ignore Raz, I ignore his trolls, and try to encourage others to do so as well.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 06:40:03 AM
The "grumbler is so old he was a _____ at the battle of _____" meme is funny. It doesn't bother me a bit (just like the "tackling" meme shouldn't bother Marti) . Some people run memes into the ground, but that also doesn't bother me.
I love Mad Libs. MORE PLEAZZ
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2010, 05:53:48 AM
Oh, and for the record--since I don't feel like addressing every post in this thread--the recent phenomenons of teabaggers and right wing nuts are all about racism and sore losing.
So they're 50% right in your book, then?
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 09:00:14 AM
Alex's "trolls" are amusing because they are not really trolls, IMO. I think he believes what he is saying.
Even if that is the case, his spouting of gays should die over and over again is tiresome. And he certainly posts them to get a negative reaction.
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2010, 09:02:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 06:40:03 AM
The "grumbler is so old he was a _____ at the battle of _____" meme is funny. It doesn't bother me a bit (just like the "tackling" meme shouldn't bother Marti) . Some people run memes into the ground, but that also doesn't bother me.
I love Mad Libs. MORE PLEAZZ
Grumbler was there when Cyrus took Babylon. Grumbler was there when Aeitus faced Attila at Chalons. Centurion Grumbler tripped Jesus on the way to the crucifixion.
Grumbler ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
God said "Let there be light."
Grumbler said "Turn that damn light down, it is using too much energy."
grumbler said, "Big Bang? What Big Bang? I didn't hear any noise. Sound waves don't travel through space."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2010, 10:48:17 AM
grumbler said, "Big Bang? What Big Bang? I didn't hear any noise. Sound waves don't travel through space."
Wouldn't space have been dense enough immediately after the big bang for sound to travel through it?
You'd have to ask grumbler. ;)
Is it possible that God prays to grumbler?
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 07:58:28 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2010, 07:35:52 AM
Actually it's the Fate-Alexandru Rule. Raz sometimes says silly shit, but so do a lot of people. I have never even considered adding Raz to Teh Rule(TM).
Alexandru's trolls are amusing. Raz's trolls are painfully unfunny and dumb, much like Fate's. Raz isn't trolling all of the time, unlike Fate. Still, he is trolling often enough that the rule applies unless one is specifically responding to a humorous or insightful comment (which his troll about Berkut "beating the racism drum" was not).
Berkut knew what he was doing bring up Reverend Wright back in 1998. It annoyed the shit out of me then. I think I have the right to use it against him now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 12:00:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2010, 10:48:17 AM
grumbler said, "Big Bang? What Big Bang? I didn't hear any noise. Sound waves don't travel through space."
Wouldn't space have been dense enough immediately after the big bang for sound to travel through it?
it is stupid questions to joke posts like that makes me dislike you. verily.
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2010, 01:34:17 PM
Is it possible that God prays to grumbler?
No, Grumbler corrected God's grammer too often. That is why God doesnt speak to anyone anymore.
Grammer? :x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolcdn.com%2Fwireimage%2FE%2F2007-06-08%2FWI14245409_kelsey-grammer-fox-upfront-may.jpg&hash=9c9f196395a8e2f30b81cc781fc3cc09ef8473ac)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 12:00:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2010, 10:48:17 AM
grumbler said, "Big Bang? What Big Bang? I didn't hear any noise. Sound waves don't travel through space."
Wouldn't space have been dense enough immediately after the big bang for sound to travel through it?
No. While the density of the universe was well in excess of the heart of a star, but the amplitude is too high for it to really be considered 'sound'.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2010, 04:39:23 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2010, 01:34:17 PM
Is it possible that God prays to grumbler?
No, Grumbler corrected God's grammer too often. That is why God doesnt speak to anyone anymore.
He does speak. About 4 posts after yours, for instance.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 05:10:55 PM
Incidentally, what I don't get is why so many of these teaparty types seem to look back to the past as some sort of tax eldorado? I mean, in 1960s, wasn't the highest tax bracket in its 80%s?
How far back is "the past"? In the 1920s, the top rate was 25% and only if you made the equivalent of over 1 million dollars. Before 1913, there was no income tax and virtually no federal taxes existed...so why only go back 50 years? Because your argument likes to ignore history?
When grumbler was a boy, the tax rate was 0%. Hunter-gatherers didn't pay taxes.
Quote from: Neil on April 23, 2010, 09:06:01 PM
When grumbler was a boy, the tax rate was 0%. Hunter-gatherers didn't pay taxes.
Incorrect. The left tusk of each mastodon was sacrificed to Aeiou, the god of consonants.
I think I might have preferred the god of vowels, then.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2010, 10:07:17 PM
I think I might have preferred the god of vowels, then.
No one could pronounce Abcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxz's name, until the Aztecs came along.
:wub:
Y is excluded, due to his open-mindedness.
Quote from: Neil on April 23, 2010, 10:13:39 PM
Y is excluded, due to his open-mindedness.
Does he go both ways?
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2010, 10:14:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 23, 2010, 10:13:39 PM
Y is excluded, due to his open-mindedness.
Does he go both ways?
I refuse to indulge in trashy gossip.
Damn, I was hoping to get something to put on my blog.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2010, 07:53:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 06:40:03 AM
I am? :huh: Didn't know that. I didn't know I was going to ignore anyone, for that matter (DGuller is the ostentatious ignorer).
You do ignore Fate, well kinda. I was just fishing for a reason you might want to extend the same treatment to Raz, that's all.
He's just mad at me for telling Dguller to ignore his trolls last week. He'll get over it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2010, 10:07:17 PM
I think I might have preferred the god of vowels, then.
No one could pronounce Abcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxz's name, until the Aztecs came along.
So the god of vowels had to share "A" with the god of consonants? Was this the result of a religious war? Is that why neither of them wanted "Y". Poor lonely "Y"... :(