http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hawaii-verifies-obama-birth-records-arizona-082322680.html
QuoteA nearly three-month-long tussle between two states over President Obama's birth records may be at an end.
The state of Hawaii said late Tuesday it has provided verification of the president's birth to Arizona's secretary of state, who claimed he needed proof of Obama's citizenship before he could place his name on the state's November ballot.
Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, told The Associated Press that the matter is now resolved.
Hawaii didn't give in to the request quickly or easily, pressing Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett for proof that the records were needed as part of normal business.
Wisch said Hawaii got the necessary proof, so it sent Bennett's office the verification.
A spokesman for Bennett said he received Hawaii's verification and will comment Wednesday. It was not clear if the new information would satisfy Bennett or bring the dispute to a close.
In a radio interview last week, Bennett insisted he is "not a birther. I believe the president was born in Hawaii — or at least I hope he was."
But, he said, "my responsibility as secretary of state is to make sure the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballot have met the qualifications for the office they are seeking."
Look at those two states wisely using their tax dollars. :)
Thank goodness. This issue is finally settled. ;)
Actually, Arizona hasn't stated that the matter is resolved.
Is the requirement for being a 'natural born citizen of the United States' require one actually be born in the United States? His mother was an American citizen...so every American who just happened to be born abroad is not eligible for the Presidency? That is just idiotic and surely cannot be what the law says on the matter. What a waste of public money and time.
it won't be resolved. Ever. They will not be content with a negro ever sitting in the President's chair, as long as they live.
Quote from: Jaron on May 23, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
Thank goodness. This issue is finally settled. ;)
:lol: ;) is right.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
it won't be resolved. Ever. They will not be content with a negro ever sitting in the President's chair, as long as they live.
Shame, isn't it?
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
it won't be resolved. Ever. They will not be content with a negro ever sitting in the President's chair, as long as they live.
I am dissapointed in you Tamas. Buying into that kind of racism is rather pathetic.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 08:53:25 AM
Is the requirement for being a 'natural born citizen of the United States' require one actually be born in the United States? His mother was an American citizen...so every American who just happened to be born abroad is not eligible for the Presidency? That is just idiotic and surely cannot be what the law says on the matter. What a waste of public money and time.
The US Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen" once and never defines it.
However, Congress defined it in 1790 and it included persons born abroad but possessing at least one US-citizen parent. it has never since been defined differently, though the term itself doesn't appear in the current naturalization law.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2012, 09:59:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 08:53:25 AM
Is the requirement for being a 'natural born citizen of the United States' require one actually be born in the United States? His mother was an American citizen...so every American who just happened to be born abroad is not eligible for the Presidency? That is just idiotic and surely cannot be what the law says on the matter. What a waste of public money and time.
The US Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen" once and never defines it.
However, Congress defined it in 1790 and it included persons born abroad but possessing at least one US-citizen parent. it has never since been defined differently, though the term itself doesn't appear in the current naturalization law.
Please dont tell me Arizona is this fucking stupid?
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 09:03:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
it won't be resolved. Ever. They will not be content with a negro ever sitting in the President's chair, as long as they live.
I am dissapointed in you Tamas. Buying into that kind of racism is rather pathetic.
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken :P
What happens when you steal it.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 23, 2012, 10:05:33 AM
Please dont tell me Arizona is this fucking stupid?
It's not just Arizona. It's a sizable percentage of the Republican base. They are utterly uninterested in the truth; they just keep harping on the lie hoping that, if they repeat the lie long enough, it will become a truth, and Obama won't be eligible for re-election.
Yes, it is as stupid as betting on unicorns to win the triple crown, but we aren't talking rocket scientists here. These are people for whom magical thinking is commonplace. They believe in invisible superfriends who punish the wicked and reward the virtuous; they believe that they will live forever in some Disneyland in the sky; why wouldn't they believe in the magic of the big lie, as well?
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 23, 2012, 10:05:33 AM
Please dont tell me Arizona is this fucking stupid?
It's not just Arizona. It's a sizable percentage of the Republican base. They are utterly uninterested in the truth; they just keep harping on the lie hoping that, if they repeat the lie long enough, it will become a truth, and Obama won't be eligible for re-election.
Yes, it is as stupid as betting on unicorns to win the triple crown, but we aren't talking rocket scientists here. These are people for whom magical thinking is commonplace. They believe in invisible superfriends who punish the wicked and reward the virtuous; they believe that they will live forever in some Disneyland in the sky; why wouldn't they believe in the magic of the big lie, as well?
Really, I havent followed this whole issue. Always seen it and said to myself, WTF are they on about now.
What you stated, is what I knew as being correct. The average American wont even realize they are being insulted by these asshats.
Incredible and shocking really.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2012, 10:09:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 09:03:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
it won't be resolved. Ever. They will not be content with a negro ever sitting in the President's chair, as long as they live.
I am dissapointed in you Tamas. Buying into that kind of racism is rather pathetic.
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken :P
I wasn't being sarcastic in the least, unfortunately.
All i can say is look at the two states that produced Berkut, Arizona and Kansas.....
:P
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 10:59:08 AM
I wasn't being sarcastic in the least, unfortunately.
So you think it is just a coincidence they are playing the 'not American enough' card on a guy named 'Hussein'? Because it looks like a brilliant, if kind of fucked up, political strategy to me.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 11:05:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 10:59:08 AM
I wasn't being sarcastic in the least, unfortunately.
So you think it is just a coincidence they are playing the 'not American enough' card on a guy named 'Hussein'? Because it looks like a brilliant, if kind of fucked up, political strategy to me.
Coincidence? Not at all - I think they are playing any card they can play. There is a question about his birth, so stupid people are playing that card. It is idiotic, but it has very little, if anything, to do with his race. If he was white and there was a question about his birth, the right wingers would do the exact same thing.
I am sure there is some element of racism involved for some people - but that is true for any particular issue.
The much more pervasive racism is the people who try to make it be about race, by repeatedly claiming that ANY opposition to Obama, sane or crazy, is because he is black.
You are a birther? RACIST
You don't think Obama has been effective? ZOMG RACIST!
You think Obama shouldn't be president because he smoked dope and did "a little blow"? WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE???
Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist. And people who isntantly whip out the race card and play it over and over and over and over again don't need to go looking elsewhere to find racism.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:14:49 AM
Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist.
Common sense suggests otherwise. I see no other reason to care about that unless you think, for some reason, he is not American enough. Basically you are a xenophobic asshole. I mean how blatant does it have to be?
The rest of that stuff I agree with you.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:14:49 AM
Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist.
Common sense suggests otherwise. I see no other reason to care about that unless you think, for some reason, he is not American enough. Basically you are a xenophobic asshole. I mean how blatant does it have to be?
The rest of that stuff I agree with you.
I can see another reason:
Because he is a left wing Democrat, and Jesus demands that you oppose them at any and all times and for any and all reasons no matter what.
It's the same reason these same kind of people actually believe that Clinton murdered James Whatshisname, or that the MoveOn types would give serious consideration to the idea that maybe the Bush administration staged 9/11. You don't need to be black to have crazy people think crazy things about you.
Moveon.org types like Jerome Corsi? You might remember him for writing a book that Hans liked so much he used it's cover for his avatar in 2004. You ought look a little closer at the Truthers. I think you are more likely to find Libertarians and Ron Paul wackos in their ranks then anyone else.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:14:49 AM
Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist.
Common sense suggests otherwise. I see no other reason to care about that unless you think, for some reason, he is not American enough. Basically you are a xenophobic asshole. I mean how blatant does it have to be?
The rest of that stuff I agree with you.
It's a shame that a lot of those are strawman arguments. I don't recall the calls linking Obama's supposed incompetence with racism. Or the blow thing either.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:14:49 AM
Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist.
Common sense suggests otherwise. I see no other reason to care about that unless you think, for some reason, he is not American enough. Basically you are a xenophobic asshole. I mean how blatant does it have to be?
The rest of that stuff I agree with you.
Question: suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President. Now, there's no doubt that he isn't a natural born American. Are you saying that you'd be OK with him becoming President despite the fact that he's not legally eligible to do so?
I'm not asking if you think the Constitution should be amended to allow naturalized citizens to become President--I'm asking if you think it's OK to simply ignore the law.
And, I've said this before, but just for the record, I have no doubt that President Obama meets the Constitutional requirements for his office.
There is some irony actually in the incessant shouts of "racism!" in regards to Obama.
Calling birthers racist is actually done for the exact same reason birthers say Obama is not eligible to be President.
Not because it makes any sense, but simply because it is easy and it works.
My aunt still mispronounces Hawaii.
"Guys, would you like to see pictures from our 'Hawaya' trip?" :frusty:
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:02:01 PM
Not because it makes any sense, but simply because it is easy and it works.
If you say so. What exactly does it take for something to be racism?
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:24:54 AM
Because he is a left wing Democrat, and Jesus demands that you oppose them at any and all times and for any and all reasons no matter what.
Right so mobilizing xenophobes and racists into a frothing rage is a good plan.
It does not work for non-racists. But there are plenty of other, more sane things, to do to discredit Obama to them.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2012, 09:59:55 AM
However, Congress defined it in 1790 and it included persons born abroad but possessing at least one US-citizen parent. it has never since been defined differently, though the term itself doesn't appear in the current naturalization law.
It has to be more restricted than that, because I was born abroad, and I possess a US-citizen parent, and a spare. However, I'm pretty sure I'm an artificially born US citizen.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:14:49 AM
Coincidence? Not at all - I think they are playing any card they can play. There is a question about his birth, so stupid people are playing that card. It is idiotic, but it has very little, if anything, to do with his race. If he was white and there was a question about his birth, the right wingers would do the exact same thing.
I am sure there is some element of racism involved for some people - but that is true for any particular issue.
The much more pervasive racism is the people who try to make it be about race, by repeatedly claiming that ANY opposition to Obama, sane or crazy, is because he is black.
You are a birther? RACIST
You don't think Obama has been effective? ZOMG RACIST!
You think Obama shouldn't be president because he smoked dope and did "a little blow"? WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE???
Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist. And people who isntantly whip out the race card and play it over and over and over and over again don't need to go looking elsewhere to find racism.
It's so frustrating to have them on your side, isn't it? Kinda like having Martinus on your side of an argument.
I think it's adorable that you attempt discount their racism, though. It's a good effort, and I commend you. :hug:
QuoteIf he was white and there was a question about his birth, the right wingers would do the exact same thing.
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
'Cause he
lost.
In spite of clear and unequivocal evidence to the contrary, there are people who are still insisting that the black president is not a natural born American, which AFAIK is the first time such a claim has ever been made about a president. If you have to weigh, on the basis of likelihood, whether or not racism would inform that continued assertion in spite of the evidence, well, I think it's pretty fucking obvious that it does.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 11:24:54 AM
Because he is a left wing Democrat, and Jesus demands that you oppose them at any and all times and for any and all reasons no matter what.
Right so mobilizing xenophobes and racists into a frothing rage is a good plan.
You aren't listening. You don't know that they are racists - the only reason you think they are racists is that Seedy has told you so. But he is saying so for the exact same stupid reason that birthers tell you Obama isn't elgible to be president - not because it makes sense, but simply because it is simple and appealing and makes you full of righteous indignation.
It is using race as a political tool. And THAT is, well, not precisely racism, but certainly very odious.
Quote
It does not work for non-racists. But there are plenty of other, more sane things, to do to discredit Obama to them.
It does not work for non-morons is who it doesn't work for - racists or otherwise.
You are making a completely circular argument. It doesn't work for non-racists, how do I know? Because anyone who it does work for IS A RACIST ZOMG!
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:29:35 PM
the only reason you think they are racists is that Seedy has told you so. But he is saying so for the exact same stupid reason that birthers tell you Obama isn't elgible to be president - not because it makes sense, but simply because it is simple and appealing and makes you full of righteous indignation.
:lol:Hear that, Valmy? YOU AR UNDER MAH POWAH
Given that there is an undercurrent of racism to some of the anti Obama folks ("Don't Re-Nig", Federal Judges sending racist anti-Obama emails to name two), it is hard to say that the birthers do not have, at least in part, this as a background.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
George Romney too and you know Nixon would've if it would work. That's why I think what Grumbler said is probably right.
My aunt still mispronounces Hawaii.
"Guys, would you like to see pictures from our 'Hawaya' trip?" :frusty:
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:29:35 PM
You aren't listening. You don't know that they are racists - the only reason you think they are racists is that Seedy has told you so. But he is saying so for the exact same stupid reason that birthers tell you Obama isn't elgible to be president - not because it makes sense, but simply because it is simple and appealing and makes you full of righteous indignation.
Nah I look at it and it looks like racism to me. Common sense. I mean there no scientific measurement of racism, it is a see sense feel sorta thing. I don't think I am that overly sensitive it has to be pretty freaking blunt before I will call it such. Also what sort of standard is that? How would I know they are racists unless I had psychic powers?
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, for one he is a terrible President and has doubled down on most of the terrible precedents that Bush did despite us electing him primarily to reverse those things (and hey he said he was going to...what a bunch of suckers we are).
Does it really matter whether birthers are racists or just morons? :D
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 12:33:44 PM
Given that there is an undercurrent of racism to some of the anti Obama folks ("Don't Re-Nig", Federal Judges sending racist anti-Obama emails to name two), it is hard to say that the birthers do not have, at least in part, this as a background.
Never mind that this President has seen the biggest surge of documented threats recorded by the USSS, or that he's been subject to a level of discourtesy and outright disrepect at a level never seen by any other President. Called a liar from the floor of the House during a Presidential address? Fingers in his face from crazy governors in Arizona? GOP candidates that refused to address him as President Obama, just "Obama"? Kenyan Anti-Colonialism? The first President on record to request a date to address the House, and refused? Black liberation? Accused of fomenting a "less Christian" nation?
Nah, got nothing to do with him being black.
But see, that's not racism to Berkut, because he doesn't see racism. That would be racist to see racism, and since he has tossed his lot in with racists, he would never share the same political opinions of racists, because that would be racist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Do you have amnesia? Issues did arise over whether or not he could be considered a "natural born citizen".
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 23, 2012, 12:26:26 PM
In spite of clear and unequivocal evidence to the contrary, there are people who are still insisting that the black president is not a natural born American, which AFAIK is the first time such a claim has ever been made about a president.
So as long as someone comes up with any "new" issue with Obama, it must be because he is black? That is your argument? You don't have to examine their claim at all, because they ARE RACIST so you can just dismiss them right out of hand.
And it is not the case that this is the first time someone has questioned the eligibility of someone running for the office of President by the way.
For example...John McCain, despite Seedys claim to the contrary, was challenged on his eligibility for exactly the stupid reason he claims:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html
It didn't go anywhere of course, but then, neither has the idiotic claims that Obama isn't eligible, except among the crazies.
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2012, 11:58:16 AM
Question: suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President. Now, there's no doubt that he isn't a natural born American. Are you saying that you'd be OK with him becoming President despite the fact that he's not legally eligible to do so?
Where was I saying anything about this?
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Do you have amnesia? Issues did arise over whether or not he could be considered a "natural born citizen".
I don't see anybody still bitching about it 4 years later.
Although, I do commend the Bush Machine(tm) for the whisper campaign against him, implying his psychological imbalance from his Manchurian Candidate time in Vietnam, as well as his "culluh'd chillins" in South Carolina. Say one thing for the GOP, they have no problem eating their own.
I think that Berkut sometimes tries so hard to be even-handed that he ignores the facts on the ground. I think you have to be pretty delusional to not sense a strong racial undercurrent in the Republican flip-out. I think you have to be pretty illogical to counter that argument with the fact that everyone who disapproves of Obama can't possibly be racist, because some of them voted for him.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2012, 12:44:38 PM
Does it really matter whether birthers are racists or just morons? :D
Not really - but what does matter is the use of race as a political bludgeon, which IMO is incredibly revolting. It is only a very small step above actual racism, and is much more dangerous, since people seem to be proud to cloak themselves as defenders of race.
It is like accusing people of being pedophiles or something.
I find it extremely objectionable that the election of a black man to the presidency means that people can and will try to use his race to shout down opposition to him, in the manner that Seedy engages in regularly. And it was a little depressing to see someone like Tamas swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 12:33:44 PM
Given that there is an undercurrent of racism to some of the anti Obama folks ("Don't Re-Nig", Federal Judges sending racist anti-Obama emails to name two), it is hard to say that the birthers do not have, at least in part, this as a background.
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Quote from: derspiess on May 23, 2012, 12:42:00 PM
My aunt still mispronounces Hawaii.
"Guys, would you like to see pictures from our 'Hawaya' trip?" :frusty:
Why'd we get this twice? :unsure:
Stop nigger hating, Berkut. It's unseemly.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
It didn't go anywhere of course, but then, neither has the idiotic claims that Obama isn't eligible, except among the crazies.
That's a really disingenuous equivocation to make, because in Obama's case "among the crazies" makes up a very significant chunk of one party's voters. Attributing something to the fringe is only valid if the fringe is not a large block of voters.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:51:19 PM
Not really - but what does matter is the use of race as a political bludgeon, which IMO is incredibly revolting.
Am I bludgeoning anybody? I thought I was just talking on a message board. Sorry you find that revolting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Do you have amnesia? Issues did arise over whether or not he could be considered a "natural born citizen".
I don't see anybody still bitching about it 4 years later.
Why would they? :huh: McCain isn't up for presidency or vice presidency - so the issue is moot. And then of course, there was Senate Resolution 511 where it was agreed that McCain counts as a natural born citizen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Do you have amnesia? Issues did arise over whether or not he could be considered a "natural born citizen".
I don't see anybody still bitching about it 4 years later.
Although, I do commend the Bush Machine(tm) for the whisper campaign against him, implying his psychological imbalance from his Manchurian Candidate time in Vietnam, as well as his "culluh'd chillins" in South Carolina. Say one thing for the GOP, they have no problem eating their own.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 12:50:39 PM
I think that Berkut sometimes tries so hard to be even-handed that he ignores the facts on the ground. I think you have to be pretty delusional to not sense a strong racial undercurrent in the Republican flip-out. I think you have to be pretty illogical to counter that argument with the fact that everyone who disapproves of Obama can't possibly be racist, because some of them voted for him.
This has nothing to do with being even handed.
And there are no facts on the ground to ignore - nobody has provided a shred of "fact" that birthers are racists, they just assume it and demand that "common sense" says it is so, so it must be so.
An accusation of racism should be taken seriously - using it to paint "Republicans" in general in the manner that Seedy and now just you have done is as bad as actually being racist.
Your post is a great answer to Malthus' question about why it matters.
See how nicely we start talkig about crazy birthers.
Then we mention that not only are they crazy, why they are racists! Every one!
And next...voila! Now we are not even talking about birthers...we are talking about Republicans in general!
Gee, isn't that handy - we've moved from birthers are stupid to birthers are racist to Republicans are racist.
Isn't that special?
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Bah, we decided you were both a race traitor and gender traitor ages ago. You just get the Jewish Ghetto Police award. :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:51:19 PM
Not really - but what does matter is the use of race as a political bludgeon, which IMO is incredibly revolting.
Am I bludgeoning anybody? I thought I was just talking on a message board. Sorry you find that revolting.
I didn't say you were, I said people do - and there are several fine examples right here in this thread.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Damn did I just finger myself as a racist here?
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:54:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Do you have amnesia? Issues did arise over whether or not he could be considered a "natural born citizen".
I don't see anybody still bitching about it 4 years later.
Why would they? :huh: McCain isn't up for presidency or vice presidency - so the issue is moot. And then of course, there was Senate Resolution 511 where it was agreed that McCain counts as a natural born citizen.
He's a ranking member of the United States Senate; and since there have been documented accusations of bona fide MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY in Congress, I think it's something that's still worth exploring anyway, even though it's been put to bed, as it were. Much like somebody else's birth issue.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:57:06 PM
I didn't say you were, I said people do - and there are several fine examples right here in this thread.
Ah ok. Well anyway we shall just agree to disagree on this topic. As Malthus said it really does not matter in the end.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
It didn't go anywhere of course, but then, neither has the idiotic claims that Obama isn't eligible, except among the crazies.
That's a really disingenuous equivocation to make, because in Obama's case "among the crazies" makes up a very significant chunk of one party's voters. Attributing something to the fringe is only valid if the fringe is not a large block of voters.
Whatever - the issue is not how many Republicans are birthers, it is whether you can just assume birthers are racists, and by your oh so handy extension, hey look! Now
Republicans are racists!
Isn't that convenient?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Bah, we decided you were both a race traitor and gender traitor ages ago. You just get the Jewish Ghetto Police award. :P
How fitting that I'm getting told who I should be supporting from a straight, white male.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:58:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
It didn't go anywhere of course, but then, neither has the idiotic claims that Obama isn't eligible, except among the crazies.
That's a really disingenuous equivocation to make, because in Obama's case "among the crazies" makes up a very significant chunk of one party's voters. Attributing something to the fringe is only valid if the fringe is not a large block of voters.
Whatever - the issue is not how many Republicans are birthers, it is whether you can just assume birthers are racists, and by your oh so handy extension, hey look! Now Republicans are racists!
Isn't that convenient?
The extension and over-generalization of everything I said is, as usual, yours, not mine.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:57:06 PM
I didn't say you were, I said people do - and there are several fine examples right here in this thread.
Ah ok. Well anyway we shall just agree to disagree on this topic. As Malthus said it really does not matter in the end.
But it DOES matter, that is the point.
If this was just about birthers, I really would not care.
But it isn't - just look at DGullers posts. This is a tactic of using race as a political bludgeon. And that is about as low as it gets in politics, and typical of the lengths that people are willing to go to score a cheap point. The birthers do it, and the race baiters like Seedy and DG do it.
The only difference is that I know most birthers are just stupid and poorly informed by those who use them. DG and Seedy know exactly what they are doing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:54:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
Do you have amnesia? Issues did arise over whether or not he could be considered a "natural born citizen".
I don't see anybody still bitching about it 4 years later.
Why would they? :huh: McCain isn't up for presidency or vice presidency - so the issue is moot. And then of course, there was Senate Resolution 511 where it was agreed that McCain counts as a natural born citizen.
He's a ranking member of the United States Senate; and since there have been documented accusations of bona fide MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY in Congress, I think it's something that's still worth exploring anyway, even though it's been put to bed, as it were. Much like somebody else's birth issue.
Obama and Hillary both signed the resolution.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:01:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:58:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
It didn't go anywhere of course, but then, neither has the idiotic claims that Obama isn't eligible, except among the crazies.
That's a really disingenuous equivocation to make, because in Obama's case "among the crazies" makes up a very significant chunk of one party's voters. Attributing something to the fringe is only valid if the fringe is not a large block of voters.
Whatever - the issue is not how many Republicans are birthers, it is whether you can just assume birthers are racists, and by your oh so handy extension, hey look! Now Republicans are racists!
Isn't that convenient?
The extension and over-generalization of everything I said is, as usual, yours, not mine.
Quote from: DGullerI think you have to be pretty delusional to not sense a strong racial undercurrent in the Republican flip-out.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 12:57:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Damn did I just finger myself as a racist here?
According to PDH's post that was full of hedging - if you are anti-Obama you have some racism.
QuoteHow fitting that I'm getting told who I should be supporting from a straight, white male.
We white straight cisgendered abled (did I leave any out?) males are never short on opinions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:45:25 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 12:33:44 PM
Given that there is an undercurrent of racism to some of the anti Obama folks ("Don't Re-Nig", Federal Judges sending racist anti-Obama emails to name two), it is hard to say that the birthers do not have, at least in part, this as a background.
Never mind that this President has seen the biggest surge of documented threats recorded by the USSS, or that he's been subject to a level of discourtesy and outright disrepect at a level never seen by any other President. Called a liar from the floor of the House during a Presidential address? Fingers in his face from crazy governors in Arizona? GOP candidates that refused to address him as President Obama, just "Obama"? Kenyan Anti-Colonialism? The first President on record to request a date to address the House, and refused? Black liberation? Accused of fomenting a "less Christian" nation?
Nah, got nothing to do with him being black.
But see, that's not racism to Berkut, because he doesn't see racism. That would be racist to see racism, and since he has tossed his lot in with racists, he would never share the same political opinions of racists, because that would be racist.
Well it's not like Berkut has a history of ignoring things he doesn't like. :goodboy:
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2012, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
John McCain was born in Panama, allegedly in "The Zone". Why wasn't anybody asking about his birth certificate? That's not even a state. Hmmm....
'Cause he lost.
More to the point, McCain did get broadsided on race in South Carolina. Remember the whispers campaign about a black child?
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 01:04:43 PM
QuoteHow fitting that I'm getting told who I should be supporting from a straight, white male.
We white straight cisgendered abled (did I leave any out?) males are never short on opinions.
It isn't so much the opinions but the demands. :P
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:59:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Bah, we decided you were both a race traitor and gender traitor ages ago. You just get the Jewish Ghetto Police award. :P
How fitting that I'm getting told who I should be supporting from a straight, white male.
Not my problem you root for people who would not only hate you if they knew you, but would rather roll back your civil rights and, preferably, have you cured or dead.
But hey, that's the way you roll.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:59:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Bah, we decided you were both a race traitor and gender traitor ages ago. You just get the Jewish Ghetto Police award. :P
How fitting that I'm getting told who I should be supporting from a straight, white male.
Not my problem you root for people who would not only hate you if they knew you, but would rather roll back your civil rights and, preferably, have you cured or dead.
But hey, that's the way you roll.
You're right. I think Hil wanted to do all of the above.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:13:03 PM
You're right. I think Hil wanted to do all of the above.
I don't see you wearing a Hillary button this time around.
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:13:03 PM
You're right. I think Hil wanted to do all of the above.
I don't see you wearing a Hillary button this time around.
I'm likely to not even enter the voting booth.
You disappoint Martin Bashir.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.
Fair.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:09:46 PM
It isn't so much the opinions but the demands. :P
Our opinions are backed by cultural privilege!
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.
Hmmm...San Francisco, or Lawrence, Kansas? Go fig.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.
It ain't so bad. Though I guess I am in a city where Dems reign supreme inside a state where Republicans reign supreme.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 01:21:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.
Hmmm...San Francisco, or Lawrence, Kansas? Go fig.
Careful now, by reaching back like that in history, you're beginning to hop to the same rules as victimized Quebecois. ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
I'm with you, having lived in New York and Jersey City. The Democratic Party's monopoly of power hasn't done good things for these places. I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics. However, that doesn't mean that I have to be support Republicans from anywhere in US, even if they're much more insane than any Republican at home.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:25:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.
I'm with you, having lived in New York and Jersey City. The Democratic Party's monopoly of power hasn't done good things for these places. I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics. However, that doesn't mean that I have to be support Republicans from anywhere in US, even if they're much more insane than any Republican at home.
Agreed on all fronts.
Scary.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
According to PDH's post that was full of hedging - if you are anti-Obama you have some racism.
You are showing a new and a wonderful way of being an idiot.
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 01:26:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
According to PDH's post that was full of hedging - if you are anti-Obama you have some racism.
You are showing a new and a wonderful way of being an idiot.
Let's look shall we.
QuoteGiven that there is an undercurrent of racism to some of the anti Obama folks ("Don't Re-Nig", Federal Judges sending racist anti-Obama emails to name two), it is hard to say that the birthers do not have, at least in part, this as a background.
Looks like you hedged just about everywhere you could in that sentence. It looks like you were headed towards the unsupported conclusion that because some members of a group are racist than the group must be somehow racist but then backed up as that can't really be said.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:01:44 PM
The extension and over-generalization of everything I said is, as usual, yours, not mine.
Quote from: DGullerI think you have to be pretty delusional to not sense a strong racial undercurrent in the Republican flip-out.
The flipout is Republican, not just Tea Party. To say Tea Party and not Republican would be an overly disingenous attempt at moderation. That doesn't mean that my statement claims that all Republican flip out directed at Obama is race-based, it's just stating that it's a strong factor.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 01:01:57 PM
But it DOES matter, that is the point.
If this was just about birthers, I really would not care.
But it isn't - just look at DGullers posts. This is a tactic of using race as a political bludgeon. And that is about as low as it gets in politics, and typical of the lengths that people are willing to go to score a cheap point. The birthers do it, and the race baiters like Seedy and DG do it.
The only difference is that I know most birthers are just stupid and poorly informed by those who use them. DG and Seedy know exactly what they are doing.
I'm just curious, what events in life made you so paranoid, and always make you assume some nefarious plots behind other people's opinions that you disagree with? I can understand being paranoid in EU3 when my Sweden attacks your Russia after you think that my Sweden is your ally, but why the paranoia here?
When I say that I believe that race plays a significant part in the ferocious Republican backlash, why is your first thought that it must be some propaganda plot by me trying to set the agenda ? Why can't I simply be holding a mistaken belief? Why isn't that your default assumption? Do I really have such an enormous track record of dishonesty, and saying things with ulterior motive, that the possibility of me simply being wrong should be dismissed out of hand? Or, maybe you yourself are trying to score a cheap point, by postulating that we say things you disagree with out of malice, and not out of stupidity.
These kinds of posts are the reason why I dread getting involved in debates with you. You're a good and strand-up guy normally, but sometimes your brain chemistry gets a little too unpredictable and out of control when these debates start going. It's not fun to debate when your honesty and motivation gets constantly questioned, and that goes way out of bounds of even rough and tumble debates.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2012, 11:58:16 AM
Question: suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President. Now, there's no doubt that he isn't a natural born American. Are you saying that you'd be OK with him becoming President despite the fact that he's not legally eligible to do so?
Where was I saying anything about this?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your response to Berkut here:
Quote from: ValmyQuote from: BerkutCaring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist.
Common sense suggests otherwise. I see no other reason to care about that unless you think, for some reason, he is not American enough. Basically you are a xenophobic asshole. I mean how blatant does it have to be?
The rest of that stuff I agree with you.
I as read it, Berkut says that caring about where President Obama was born makes you an idiot. You agreed with him, and further said that it makes you a xenophobic asshole. (Where the 2 of you disagree is on whether caring about the issue makes you a racist.) So my question is, if caring about where someone seeking the office of President was born makes you a moronic, xenophobic asshole, should we amend the Constitution so as to eliminate the issue, or just ignore the Constitutional requirements for the office?
I think Valmy is referring to this specific instance, where plenty of evidence of Obama's 'native-bornness' has been provided, certainly more than any other presidential candidate in recent memory.
Quote from: frunk on May 23, 2012, 02:11:28 PM
I think Valmy is referring to this specific instance, where plenty of evidence of Obama's 'native-bornness' has been provided, certainly more than any other presidential candidate in recent memory.
Yeah. For any reasonable person the fact his mother was an American citizen at the time at his birth should have satisfied the Constitutional requirement. Is to the reasonableness of the requirement to begin with...I would not be opposed to changing it but that debate is not really on the table. Especially as Arnold did not exactly rock the universe as Governor unforunately. It would take a real political super star to really even get the issue talked about seriously.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
Yeah. For any reasonable person the fact his mother was an American citizen at the time at his birth should have satisfied the Constitutional requirement. Is to the reasonableness of the requirement to begin with...I would not be opposed to changing it but that debate is not really on the table. Especially as Arnold did not exactly rock the universe as Governor unforunately. It would take a real political super star to really even get the issue talked about seriously.
That's the problem. If you've got no foreign-born politicians, then the issue appears moot. If you have a foreign-born politician who is being held back by the requirement, then the issue is not moot, but it is going to be opposed by the party that doesn't have that politician. Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith even in Democrat politicians and voters to ignore the practical outcome of the repeal of the requirement, and vote according to moral values, in the numbers sufficient to satisfy the super-duper majority requirement for the amendment to pass.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:29:57 PM
Let's look shall we.
Looks like you hedged just about everywhere you could in that sentence. It looks like you were headed towards the unsupported conclusion that because some members of a group are racist than the group must be somehow racist but then backed up as that can't really be said.
I hedged because, as has been shown here, there are plenty of great ways to be anti-Obama without being a racist. Still, as should be apparent, there is an undercurrent of racism in some of the attacks. So, how does one indicate that some and not of a group might be in this group (and hedging of the words is because whenever confronted those doing these attacks proclaim they are not racist)? Why, one can use a word or phrase that shows this group is not the entire group!
In this wonderful day of all or nothing, I suppose such parenthetical use of words to indicate one does not believe an entire group should be painted in such a way is indicative of my sneakily attacking the group. Your quickness to jump to this shows that the discourse might well have changed and use of hedging words or not using Raz/Hans broad strokes might be the perceived norm.
By they way, the "wonderfully idiotic" was how you seem to be highlighting this new discourse (fostered and helped by both sides of the political debate). You, while nasty and prickly at times are rarely idiotic.
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 03:10:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 01:29:57 PM
Let's look shall we.
Looks like you hedged just about everywhere you could in that sentence. It looks like you were headed towards the unsupported conclusion that because some members of a group are racist than the group must be somehow racist but then backed up as that can't really be said.
I hedged because, as has been shown here, there are plenty of great ways to be anti-Obama without being a racist. Still, as should be apparent, there is an undercurrent of racism in some of the attacks. So, how does one indicate that some and not of a group might be in this group (and hedging of the words is because whenever confronted those doing these attacks proclaim they are not racist)? Why, one can use a word or phrase that shows this group is not the entire group!
In this wonderful day of all or nothing, I suppose such parenthetical use of words to indicate one does not believe an entire group should be painted in such a way is indicative of my sneakily attacking the group. Your quickness to jump to this shows that the discourse might well have changed and use of hedging words or not using Raz/Hans broad strokes might be the perceived norm.
By they way, the "wonderfully idiotic" was how you seem to be highlighting this new discourse (fostered and helped by both sides of the political debate). You, while nasty and prickly at times are rarely idiotic.
I don't think there is much use in pointing out that some members of the group are racists given that Berkut already agreed to that rather early on. I think your hedged statement can only really serve to suggest that the entire group is infected by such racism...especially as it was proffered after statements from several that the birthers can hardly be seen as anything but racially motivated. Given the inflammatory and unsubstantiated nature of such a claim, I felt free to make my own in the same vein when stating that you think that everyone who is anti-Obama is steeped somewhat in a background of racism.
While Berk states that there is obviously some racism evident, he (at least in this thread) downplays it as well. Thus, pointing out that it is a part of the fringe (oh no, "a part!") should be valid.
Infected by racism is in and of itself a loaded phrase - I seriously do not think that there is a racism disease, but I do believe there is an undercurrant of race in much of the broader US society, history makes this clear. Racism, however, in its open and obvious way, does seem to rear its head among an element of the anti-obama group. I would suspect that an element of the people opposing the black woman running for congress will have expressions of racism too. However, again that will be a part.
You did seem quick to associate "a part" with some sort of slippery slope argument. If I say some, then that is what I mean. When I say all, then that is what I mean. On this forum, Valmy is saying that their seems to be a racist element in birther attacks, and yet he is anti-Obama. So he is (from what you say I am intimating) racist attacking others from being racist?
Heck, I'm sure that there are racists Democrats out there that don't really want a black guy in the White House, but are OK with it as long as he's a Democrat. It's like the old joke:
There was a fire and brimstone type preacher who was also an old-fashioned, dye-in-the-wool, Southern Democrat. On day, a member of his congregation remarked to him, "Preacher, I think you'd vote for Satan himself as long as he ran on the Democratic ticket, wouldn't you?". The preacher replied, "Well, not in the primary I wouldn't!".
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:25:15 PM
I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics.
Right. Like school boards?
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 01:01:57 PM
But it DOES matter, that is the point.
If this was just about birthers, I really would not care.
But it isn't - just look at DGullers posts. This is a tactic of using race as a political bludgeon. And that is about as low as it gets in politics, and typical of the lengths that people are willing to go to score a cheap point. The birthers do it, and the race baiters like Seedy and DG do it.
The only difference is that I know most birthers are just stupid and poorly informed by those who use them. DG and Seedy know exactly what they are doing.
I'm just curious, what events in life made you so paranoid, and always make you assume some nefarious plots behind other people's opinions that you disagree with? I can understand being paranoid in EU3 when my Sweden attacks your Russia after you think that my Sweden is your ally, but why the paranoia here?
I love the blatant poisoning of the well in your question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Quote
When I say that I believe that race plays a significant part in the ferocious Republican backlash, why is your first thought that it must be some propaganda plot by me trying to set the agenda ?
Because I know you are too smart to really think that making unsupported accusations and engaging in pretty transparent attempts to apply the "racist" label to Republicans in general (as I very clearly evidenced with the nice little move from "birthers are racists" to "Republicans are racists") to think that you are doing so accidently.
Quote
Why can't I simply be holding a mistaken belief?
For the same reason I don't buy into the idea that people like Rush can really believe that Obama is not a US citizen. You are too smart to hold such an obviously silly belief.
Quote
Why isn't that your default assumption? Do I really have such an enormous track record of dishonesty, and saying things with ulterior motive, that the possibility of me simply being wrong should be dismissed out of hand?
Not at all - it is pretty trivial to simply judge based on your posts in this very thread. Your attempt to apply the lable of "racist" to the Republican party is rather transparent, and all stemming from the demand that it be applied to birthers on the basis of "common sense" or "it is obvious".
Quote
Or, maybe you yourself are trying to score a cheap point, by postulating that we say things you disagree with out of malice, and not out of stupidity.
Why would I do that - who would I be scoring this cheap point with?
No - I think race baiting is an incredibly offensive political tactic.
Youa re slightly more subtle than Seedy is at it, in that you at least try to claim it isn't what you are doing when you connect the dots, but it is pretty obvious.
If in fact that is not the case, then I notice you haven't bothered to challenge Seedy on it when he is not even trying to hide it. Instead you jump right into the fight agreeing with the stance that birthers are racist, and then merrily insert "Republicans" for birthers so you can conclude that Republicans are racists as well.
Quote
These kinds of posts are the reason why I dread getting involved in debates with you.
You should dread getting involved in debates with people who are willing to call you our when engage in such transparent smears of those who have the audacity to be the hated "Republicans".
When you do stuff like this, it makes you look like a fanatic to those who are not drinking the same kool-aid. If you want to NOT be challenged, then just only engage with people who already agree with you, like Seedy and Raz. You can all sit around telling each other how racist Republicans are, and how awesome you are for recognizing it.
Quote
You're a good and strand-up guy normally, but sometimes your brain chemistry gets a little too unpredictable and out of control when these debates start going. It's not fun to debate when your honesty and motivation gets constantly questioned, and that goes way out of bounds of even rough and tumble debates.
This coming from someone who just labeled an entire party as being racists.
It's funny - you hate it when I call you out for being completely unwilling to see anything from a perspective other than your own, and you don't see it at all. You hate having YOUR motivations and honesty questioned
while at the same time you insist that it is perfectly reasonable to question the motives and honesty of entire groups of people!YOU are offended that I question your stated motives, at the exact same time you blithely state that tens of thousands of people are motivated by racism - your evidence for which is simply your "common sense".
I am continually amazed that someone as smart as you consistently does not see the basic incongruity in your own positions.
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 03:41:57 PM
While Berk states that there is obviously some racism evident, he (at least in this thread) downplays it as well. Thus, pointing out that it is a part of the fringe (oh no, "a part!") should be valid.
The issue however is whether or not the racism is meaningful or relevant.
Saying that there are racists in the birther group means nothing - there are racists in every group.
Following that up with the claim that it is in fact racism which drives the group identity such that it is meaningful to bring up "RACISTS!" literally every single time the group is brought up is a different thing entirely. And that happens every single time the birther issue comes up.
Then, DG comes along and makes that next connection by substituting "Republican" for birthers - and we see the basic intent of the cry.
I could say that there are racists in the MoveOn crowd, and it would be factually true.
Then everytime someone brought up MoveOn, I could say "Yeah, a lot of the are racists, that is why they think that way!"
And when someone challenges me, I could fall back on "Well, you are crazy if you don't think there are at least some racists in that group!" and "It is simply common sense".
But if everytime it comes up, people start talking about racism, then it is pretty clear that there is an intent to cast the debate in only those terms.
Which, in this case, I think is entirely false.
And the next step of then subtly switching "MoveOn" to "Democrats" make it pretty obvious what the intent of the entire thing becomes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:25:15 PM
I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics.
Right. Like school boards?
No, mayoral elections, and even to some extent gubernatorial elections. I'm willing to take the chance of a Senate appointment and vote for a Republican candidate for governor, if he seems like a sensible fellow. Above that level, I really do not have an option. Even if a Republican candidate for Congress or Senate is sensible, if elected, he will be part of a party that would be more cohesive than the Communist Party of the USSR in 1938.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 01:01:57 PM
But it DOES matter, that is the point.
If this was just about birthers, I really would not care.
But it isn't - just look at DGullers posts. This is a tactic of using race as a political bludgeon. And that is about as low as it gets in politics, and typical of the lengths that people are willing to go to score a cheap point. The birthers do it, and the race baiters like Seedy and DG do it.
The only difference is that I know most birthers are just stupid and poorly informed by those who use them. DG and Seedy know exactly what they are doing.
I'm just curious, what events in life made you so paranoid, and always make you assume some nefarious plots behind other people's opinions that you disagree with? I can understand being paranoid in EU3 when my Sweden attacks your Russia after you think that my Sweden is your ally, but why the paranoia here?
I love the blatant poisoning of the well in your question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Quote
When I say that I believe that race plays a significant part in the ferocious Republican backlash, why is your first thought that it must be some propaganda plot by me trying to set the agenda ?
Because I know you are too smart to really think that making unsupported accusations and engaging in pretty transparent attempts to apply the "racist" label to Republicans in general (as I very clearly evidenced with the nice little move from "birthers are racists" to "Republicans are racists") to think that you are doing so accidently.
Quote
Why can't I simply be holding a mistaken belief?
For the same reason I don't buy into the idea that people like Rush can really believe that Obama is not a US citizen. You are too smart to hold such an obviously silly belief.
Quote
Why isn't that your default assumption? Do I really have such an enormous track record of dishonesty, and saying things with ulterior motive, that the possibility of me simply being wrong should be dismissed out of hand?
Not at all - it is pretty trivial to simply judge based on your posts in this very thread. Your attempt to apply the lable of "racist" to the Republican party is rather transparent, and all stemming from the demand that it be applied to birthers on the basis of "common sense" or "it is obvious".
Quote
Or, maybe you yourself are trying to score a cheap point, by postulating that we say things you disagree with out of malice, and not out of stupidity.
Why would I do that - who would I be scoring this cheap point with?
No - I think race baiting is an incredibly offensive political tactic.
Youa re slightly more subtle than Seedy is at it, in that you at least try to claim it isn't what you are doing when you connect the dots, but it is pretty obvious.
If in fact that is not the case, then I notice you haven't bothered to challenge Seedy on it when he is not even trying to hide it. Instead you jump right into the fight agreeing with the stance that birthers are racist, and then merrily insert "Republicans" for birthers so you can conclude that Republicans are racists as well.
Quote
These kinds of posts are the reason why I dread getting involved in debates with you.
You should dread getting involved in debates with people who are willing to call you our when engage in such transparent smears of those who have the audacity to be the hated "Republicans".
When you do stuff like this, it makes you look like a fanatic to those who are not drinking the same kool-aid. If you want to NOT be challenged, then just only engage with people who already agree with you, like Seedy and Raz. You can all sit around telling each other how racist Republicans are, and how awesome you are for recognizing it.
Quote
You're a good and strand-up guy normally, but sometimes your brain chemistry gets a little too unpredictable and out of control when these debates start going. It's not fun to debate when your honesty and motivation gets constantly questioned, and that goes way out of bounds of even rough and tumble debates.
This coming from someone who just labeled an entire party as being racists.
It's funny - you hate it when I call you out for being completely unwilling to see anything from a perspective other than your own, and you don't see it at all. You hate having YOUR motivations and honesty questioned while at the same time you insist that it is perfectly reasonable to question the motives and honesty of entire groups of people!
YOU are offended that I question your stated motives, at the exact same time you blithely state that tens of thousands of people are motivated by racism - your evidence for which is simply your "common sense".
I am continually amazed that someone as smart as you consistently does not see the basic incongruity in your own positions.
Yeah, it can be all that elaborate blah blah, in a subtle and devious plot to convert Languish, all 50 of its members, to my party, or it can be a simple fact that I as a person perceive a strong racial element in the backlash Obama's election caused. It has to be the elaborate blah blah. :hmm:
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2012, 03:41:57 PM
While Berk states that there is obviously some racism evident, he (at least in this thread) downplays it as well. Thus, pointing out that it is a part of the fringe (oh no, "a part!") should be valid.
Infected by racism is in and of itself a loaded phrase - I seriously do not think that there is a racism disease, but I do believe there is an undercurrant of race in much of the broader US society, history makes this clear. Racism, however, in its open and obvious way, does seem to rear its head among an element of the anti-obama group. I would suspect that an element of the people opposing the black woman running for congress will have expressions of racism too. However, again that will be a part.
You did seem quick to associate "a part" with some sort of slippery slope argument. If I say some, then that is what I mean. When I say all, then that is what I mean. On this forum, Valmy is saying that their seems to be a racist element in birther attacks, and yet he is anti-Obama. So he is (from what you say I am intimating) racist attacking others from being racist?
I think Berk got to my thoughts in his most recent post. I don't really see it useful to point out that there is an undercurrent of racism as that's inherent in a lot of things. I only think it is notable to say if you are suggesting then that the group's identity has racism as inherent to its core. I don't think that's what you're saying but I think that's what the language you used supports.
Oh and yes, I already said that - Valmy is racist! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 04:43:06 PM
I think Berk got to my thoughts in his most recent post. I don't really see it useful to point out that there is an undercurrent of racism as that's inherent in a lot of things. I only think it is notable to say if you are suggesting then that the group's identity has racism as inherent to its core. I don't think that's what you're saying but I think that's what the language you used supports.
Oh and yes, I already said that - Valmy is racist! :angry:
Why does everything that you say have to be useful? I agree that pointing out the racist component in the ODS is not that useful, because I can't see how you can act on that information even if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't change the weather when you comment about it either, and yet most of us still do it regularly in conversations with other people.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 04:52:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 04:43:06 PM
I think Berk got to my thoughts in his most recent post. I don't really see it useful to point out that there is an undercurrent of racism as that's inherent in a lot of things. I only think it is notable to say if you are suggesting then that the group's identity has racism as inherent to its core. I don't think that's what you're saying but I think that's what the language you used supports.
Oh and yes, I already said that - Valmy is racist! :angry:
Why does everything that you say have to be useful? I agree that pointing out the racist component in the ODS is not that useful, because I can't see how you can act on that information even if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't change the weather when you comment about it either, and yet most of us still do it regularly in conversations with other people.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? I think that trivial statement can easily be used maliciously as it wouldn't hard to construe as the overblown rhetoric of they are all racists.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 04:19:39 PM
Yeah, it can be all that elaborate blah blah, in a subtle and devious plot to convert Languish, all 50 of its members, to my party, or it can be a simple fact that I as a person perceive a strong racial element in the backlash Obama's election caused. It has to be the elaborate blah blah. :hmm:
Heh, you missed the point here. Berkut is projecting. You and CdM and me and millions of other Americans aren't sitting around congratulating ourselves telling ourselves how bright we are to see the racism, but Berkut is congratulating himself on being one of the few rational, level headed persons in American that isn't confused with tribalist thinking and sees this is just the same thing as when those evil Moveon.org (I guess that being a mass movement rather then just a website) saying mean things about Bush. Years of going to mental hospitals has taught me that if everyone sees something (or doesn't see something), the problem naturally lies with everyone else.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2012, 04:11:04 PM
The issue however is whether or not the racism is meaningful or relevant.
Saying that there are racists in the birther group means nothing - there are racists in every group.
Following that up with the claim that it is in fact racism which drives the group identity such that it is meaningful to bring up "RACISTS!" literally every single time the group is brought up is a different thing entirely. And that happens every single time the birther issue comes up.
Then, DG comes along and makes that next connection by substituting "Republican" for birthers - and we see the basic intent of the cry.
I could say that there are racists in the MoveOn crowd, and it would be factually true.
Then everytime someone brought up MoveOn, I could say "Yeah, a lot of the are racists, that is why they think that way!"
And when someone challenges me, I could fall back on "Well, you are crazy if you don't think there are at least some racists in that group!" and "It is simply common sense".
But if everytime it comes up, people start talking about racism, then it is pretty clear that there is an intent to cast the debate in only those terms.
Which, in this case, I think is entirely false.
And the next step of then subtly switching "MoveOn" to "Democrats" make it pretty obvious what the intent of the entire thing becomes.
In part I think that race has an underlying importance in this, simply because race is one of the key social concepts in American identity. Who is what race, what races exist, how they interact, who should marry whom, all of these things were so vitally important for so long that they just haven't gone away.
I do not think for a moment that all the vitriol for Obama is race based, the political system is far too dysfunctional these days to chalk up even a large minority to that aspect. I do think that race is and will be significant with the US social system for a while at least. They can be a minority and still have a significance.
Now, if they SHOULD be important is another question. I do think that the "people hate Obama because he is black" misses the far larger issues driving the political system these days.
Just a clarification: There is no truly formal definition of "natural born citizen" but the Congressional Research Office did a report on it and said that the general consensus basically means someone who was born into citizenship, meaning they never had to go through any form of naturalization process.
A child born in Kenya right now who has one American parent is generally born an American citizen under the "jus sanguinus" doctrine. This assumes:
1) The child's parents are married
2) The American citizen parent has, in their lifetimes spent a cumulative period of 5 years in the United States, with at least two of those years having occurred after their 14th birthday.
If both parents are citizens, then as long as either parent has ever resided in the United States for any period of time in their lives, their child is born a citizen.
The law doesn't treat children born out of wedlock equally. Out of wedlock born to an American mother (and after the year 1952), as long as the American citizen mother has spent at least one year of her life in the United States the child is born an American citizen. Born out of wedlock with an American father but not mother, the father has to take several specific actions to get his child birthright citizenship. (Meaning arrange it so his child is considered a citizen from birth and avoiding the child having to go through naturalization.)
So yes, Barack Obama at his time of birth when the law was different, would not have been a birthright American citizen if born in Kenya. Thus he would have had to go through naturalization and most likely would not be considered natural born. This is because his mother was just shy of her 19th birthday, and the law at the time said that American citizen mothers giving birth outside the United States only pass on birthright citizenship to their children if the mother has resided in the United States for a total of five years after reaching their 14th birthday. Given his mother's age at the time if she had given birth in Kenya she could not have satisfied the 5 year residency after age 14 requirement.
DGuller being born abroad to an American citizen parent may have been natural born and thus eligible for the Presidency, depending on when he was born and the specifics of his birth.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 06:09:26 PM
DGuller being born abroad to an American citizen parent may have been natural born and thus eligible for the Presidency, depending on when he was born and the specifics of his birth.
Just to clarify, my parents become naturalized citizens on the same day I did. However, the way grumbler phrased it did not disqualify me as a natural born citizen. Actually, my parents wouldn't be disqualified either, because my grandparents were naturalized as well.
How many of you came over?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
How many of you came over?
Depends on how wide you cast the net. Of my immediate family, 7. If you count less immediate family, but at the level where we still know who the fuck we are, then it has to be about 25 in total.
Sweet Jesus, Slav invasion.
Or Telefon II:Electric Bugaloo.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 06:09:26 PM
So yes, Barack Obama at his time of birth when the law was different, would not have been a birthright American citizen if born in Kenya. Thus he would have had to go through naturalization and most likely would not be considered natural born. This is because his mother was just shy of her 19th birthday, and the law at the time said that American citizen mothers giving birth outside the United States only pass on birthright citizenship to their children if the mother has resided in the United States for a total of five years after reaching their 14th birthday. Given his mother's age at the time if she had given birth in Kenya she could not have satisfied the 5 year residency after age 14 requirement.
Well then, aren't we glad he was born in the State of Hawaii. Whew.
I'm a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 23, 2012, 07:13:05 PM
I'm a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Scoop. :wub: Save the trees, nuke the commies. :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 07:15:06 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on May 23, 2012, 07:13:05 PM
I'm a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Scoop. :wub: Save the trees, nuke the commies. :wub:
I should have really said Legend-Saint Henry "Scoop" Jackson. :wub: :worthy:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 07:07:59 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 06:09:26 PM
So yes, Barack Obama at his time of birth when the law was different, would not have been a birthright American citizen if born in Kenya. Thus he would have had to go through naturalization and most likely would not be considered natural born. This is because his mother was just shy of her 19th birthday, and the law at the time said that American citizen mothers giving birth outside the United States only pass on birthright citizenship to their children if the mother has resided in the United States for a total of five years after reaching their 14th birthday. Given his mother's age at the time if she had given birth in Kenya she could not have satisfied the 5 year residency after age 14 requirement.
Well then, aren't we glad he was born in the State of Hawaii. Whew.
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 06:26:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
How many of you came over?
Depends on how wide you cast the net. Of my immediate family, 7. If you count less immediate family, but at the level where we still know who the fuck we are, then it has to be about 25 in total.
That's a big problem with our immigration policies. It's relatively hard to get in, but one slavic piece of shit gets in and they can piggyback two dozen or more of their prole family along with them.
Better then Southerners.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 07:28:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 06:26:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
How many of you came over?
Depends on how wide you cast the net. Of my immediate family, 7. If you count less immediate family, but at the level where we still know who the fuck we are, then it has to be about 25 in total.
That's a big problem with our immigration policies. It's relatively hard to get in, but one slavic piece of shit gets in and they can piggyback two dozen or more of their prole family along with them.
:yeahright: My family was hardly prole. My grandmother's sister, who was the trailblazer into America, was a manager of the grocery store back in Soviet Union. That was one of the most capitalist positions you could have in Soviet Union, since you got to sell every product that was actually in demand on the black market.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
:yeahright: My family was hardly prole. My grandmother's sister, who was the trailblazer into America, was a manager of the grocery store back in Soviet Union. That was one of the most capitalist positions you could have in Soviet Union, since you got to sell every product that was actually in demand on the black market.
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
Soviet education was pretty decent. I don't think it encouraged much creativity and initiative though.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 07:28:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2012, 06:26:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
How many of you came over?
Depends on how wide you cast the net. Of my immediate family, 7. If you count less immediate family, but at the level where we still know who the fuck we are, then it has to be about 25 in total.
That's a big problem with our immigration policies. It's relatively hard to get in, but one slavic piece of shit gets in and they can piggyback two dozen or more of their prole family along with them.
:yeahright: My family was hardly prole. My grandmother's sister, who was the trailblazer into America, was a manager of the grocery store back in Soviet Union. That was one of the most capitalist positions you could have in Soviet Union, since you got to sell every product that was actually in demand on the black market.
Heh, my family selling stuff in the black market as well. Some still do I think.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
My wife is a surgeon, I wipe my ass with people like DGuller.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
My wife is a surgeon, I wipe my ass with people like DGuller.
Lucky you've got a doctor in the family them.
Do you also eat your food with a hedge trimmer and offer house guests alcohol enemas ?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
My wife is a surgeon, I wipe my ass with people like DGuller.
:pinch: Just how big is your ass?
Quote from: mongers on May 23, 2012, 08:04:13 PM
Lucky you've got a doctor in the family them.
Do you also eat your food with a hedge trimmer and offer house guests alcohol enemas ?
I eat from a trough.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 07:54:50 PM
Soviet education was pretty decent. I don't think it encouraged much creativity and initiative though.
You could plot an artillery barrage with that knowledge.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
My wife is a surgeon, I wipe my ass with people like DGuller.
Well then, it sounds like we need to keep the slavic immigrant spigot turned on or we are going to need to invent some very sturdy toilet paper.
DG's reaction to the languish mob's slavic pile-on:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgif.mocksession.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FKUPCHAK.gif&hash=d644256900083873de84eb543913a19a50344456)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
My wife is a surgeon, I wipe my ass with people like DGuller.
Well then what do you do?
I'm a civil servant, I don't actually "do" anything. Thanks.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 09:36:16 PM
I'm a civil servant, I don't actually "do" anything. Thanks.
Same here.
People on Languish still argue with Berky?
I think I learned my lesson around 10 years ago. It's no use, camarade. Dude knows best and he won't change his mind, about anything, ever.
OTOH, he did help me out when I first logged on to WoW and showed me the way to Ironforge from the gnome starting area, so he can't be all bad. :cool:
That was me, asshole.
Was not! We leveled Miserere together, SUGE, but my very first character was all Berk.
Besides, we'll always have Uldaman, and you hearthing out of the boss fights lol.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 24, 2012, 12:41:06 AM
Was not! We leveled Miserere together, SUGE, but my very first character was all Berk.
Besides, we'll always have Uldaman, and you hearthing out of the boss fights lol.
Fucking asshole.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 24, 2012, 12:36:40 AM
People on Languish still argue with Berky?
I think I learned my lesson around 10 years ago. It's no use, camarade. Dude knows best and he won't change his mind, about anything, ever.
OTOH, he did help me out when I first logged on to WoW and showed me the way to Ironforge from the gnome starting area, so he can't be all bad. :cool:
He's a good guy, and he is driven to win at anything he gets involved in. Unfortunately, that's not the best trait to have when you get involved in debates.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 24, 2012, 12:36:40 AM
People on Languish still argue with Berky?
I think I learned my lesson around 10 years ago. It's no use, camarade. Dude knows best and he won't change his mind, about anything, ever.
OTOH, he did help me out when I first logged on to WoW and showed me the way to Ironforge from the gnome starting area, so he can't be all bad. :cool:
He does have a bat habit of ignoring things that disagree with him.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2012, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
Come on. In the USSR your family combined probably made less than an average janitor makes in the US. You came over here with a crappy Soviet education, probably barely speaking the language (and probably still speak it accented), and not long afterwards are an actuary probably making a lot more than a good old boy like OvB. How is this fair to a guy the advantages of a family with roots here, English as a first language, and an American education?
My wife is a surgeon, I wipe my ass with people like DGuller.
Ah, so you wife is the same category as Marty's mom or Fate. I'm very sorry. Is there anything we can do for you?
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 12:42:53 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 24, 2012, 12:36:40 AM
People on Languish still argue with Berky?
I think I learned my lesson around 10 years ago. It's no use, camarade. Dude knows best and he won't change his mind, about anything, ever.
OTOH, he did help me out when I first logged on to WoW and showed me the way to Ironforge from the gnome starting area, so he can't be all bad. :cool:
He's a good guy, and he is driven to win at anything he gets involved in. Unfortunately, that's not the best trait to have when you get involved in debates.
Pot, meet kettle.
I will admit that I don't change my mind based on the strength of arguments like those presented in this thread.
I consider that a feature though.
empirical evidence is no match for the ignore button.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 12:42:53 AM
He's a good guy, and he is driven to win at anything he gets involved in. Unfortunately, that's not the best trait to have when you get involved in debates.
Agree, and unfortunately he's not alone on the "win at all costs" thing.
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
Agree, and unfortunately he's not alone on the "win at all costs" thing.
Your mom
Quote from: PDH on May 24, 2012, 11:46:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
Agree, and unfortunately he's not alone on the "win at all costs" thing.
Your mom
:ultra: :bash: :angry:
PDH won the internet.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2012, 11:48:36 AM
PDH won the internet.
With a counterattack that goes all the way back to Jerusalem 71AD, no less.
maybe the birthers are just disappointed Morgan Freeman fans who hoped he would have been the first black president.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 24, 2012, 12:41:40 PM
maybe the birthers are just disappointed Morgan Freeman fans who hoped he would have been the first black president.
If they truly wanted a black President, then they should've made sure Dubya and Uncle Dicky shouldn't have sacrificed General Powell (2008 GOP nominee) at the United Nations in 2003.
Quote from: Jaron on May 24, 2012, 12:38:03 AM
That was me, asshole.
Was not. You lure people into the Crypts and backstab them.
How did Languish become so liberal?
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
How did Languish become so liberal?
Probably because of the example you set.
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
How did Languish become so liberal?
It's more that you went off the deep end, so languish seems more liberal to you. That and Hansie doesn't post much.
Shame that. Hansie is interesting. But then again, so was vinraith.
I think Obama have radicalized our positions.
You guys became more liberals, I became more conservative.
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:37:47 PM
I think Obama have radicalized our positions.
You guys became more liberals, I became more conservative nuttier than squirrel shit.
FYP
In unrelated news, I would so bang Meghan McCain. And I would do it for America.
She is phat.
And old.
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
She is phat.
And old.
Lulz, thank you for the stock response.
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:37:47 PM
I think Obama have radicalized our positions.
You guys became more liberals, I became more conservative.
I think many Languishites have a lot emotionally invested in Obama. Some are (bitterly?) clinging to whatever they thought Obama was in 2008. Others think he's the only hope to keep us all safe from TEH TEEBAGERS, which themselves seem to represent to individual Languishites whatever they hate/fear most about the GOP.
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:37:47 PM
I think Obama have radicalized our positions.
You guys became more liberals, I became more conservative.
Obama didn't radicalize shit. The crazies were already there, and a lot of other people were waiting to get in on it. Both liberal wackos looking to liberate the working class and the right wingers looking to start the culture war. A century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
A century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
So it's gonna get worse? In what way?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
Both liberal wackos
OK, me and who else?
QuoteA century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
I wanna be John Brown.
I want to be a GOP Blackshirt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 06:00:52 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
Both liberal wackos
OK, me and who else?
QuoteA century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
I wanna be John Brown.
Ides. He's a Marxist.
I don't know. How many black woman re you in a relationship with?
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 06:05:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 06:00:52 PM
I wanna be John Brown.
Well, go ahead.
I'm building a pipe bomb, just for you. Filling it with whore pills for secondary damage.
FBI now has a target.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 06:09:26 PM
FBI now has a target.
Yeah, I'll wait while they try to infiltrate for 8 months with somebody that'll be able to score me inert whore pills. AT NO TIME WERE THE WHORE PILLS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC
You just keep digging.
Seedy is now in Macedonia at a CIA black site. :(
I call dibs on his wargames.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2012, 06:30:42 PM
I call dibs on his wargames.
Sorry, bro...they go up in flames once the forced entry breach starts. I WILL FULFILL MY OWN PROPHESY
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
A century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
So it's gonna get worse? In what way?
I imagine the'll be another Oklahoma city.
QuoteSorry, bro...they go up in flames once the forced entry breach starts. I WILL FULFILL MY OWN PROPHESY
There went my boarding party.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20060823022606%2Fstexpanded%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fb5%2FUss_enterprise_self_destruct.jpg&hash=0c5267766e6531e8aa4b2840ad7a3d025f9a90d3)
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
A century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
So it's gonna get worse? In what way?
That's my concern. Something has to give. You can't run a country where one half of citizens is engaged in a zero-sum game against another one-half of citizens, not when running a country requires a gentleman's agreement to not conduct guerrilla warfare against the democratically-elected victor. Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
That's my concern. Something has to give. You can't run a country where one half of citizens is engaged in a zero-sum game against another one-half of citizens, not when running a country requires a gentleman's agreement to not conduct guerrilla warfare against the democratically-elected victor. Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
We need either a Congressional rule or an Amendment that if no budget is agreed upon, last year's budget is automatically in effect.
Other than that, vive gridlock.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2012, 06:43:53 PM
Other than that, vive gridlock.
:rolleyes: This is another American conservative pathology I could never understand. They think that the government is ineffective and incompetent, and yet they celebrate and look forward to the government being paralyzed. Yeah, that'll fix it. This kind of cynicism is corrupting to the core.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
:rolleyes: This is another American conservative pathology I could never understand. They think that the government is ineffective and incompetent, and yet they celebrate and look forward to the government being paralyzed. Yeah, that'll fix it. This kind of cynicism is corrupting to the core.
Gridlock is not government being paralyzed. Social Security checks get written, fighter patrols get scrambled, the FBI taps the phones, courts hand down rulings, student loans get processed, everything still works.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100104080736/http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Conservative+Free+Republic+blog+free+speech+flap+after+racial+slurs+directed+Obama+children/1782375/story.html
I wonder where people get the idea that there is racism behind some of the Obama Hate.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 24, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
A century hence Obama will be looked at like Bleeding Kansas was to the Civil War.
So it's gonna get worse? In what way?
That's my concern. Something has to give. You can't run a country where one half of citizens is engaged in a zero-sum game against another one-half of citizens, not when running a country requires a gentleman's agreement to not conduct guerrilla warfare against the democratically-elected victor. Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
Yes. Second Civil War.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2012, 06:43:53 PM
Other than that, vive gridlock.
:rolleyes: This is another American conservative pathology I could never understand. They think that the government is ineffective and incompetent, and yet they celebrate and look forward to the government being paralyzed. Yeah, that'll fix it. This kind of cynicism is corrupting to the core.
I like to think that Teabagger Richard Mourdock, who ousted Senator Richard Lugar out in Indiana in the GOP primary, summed it up best the day after the election:
"I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. You know, I've said many times through this campaign that one of the things I hope to do is to help build a conservative majority in the United States Senate and continue to help the House build a Republican majority and have a Republican White House and then bipartisanship becomes having Democrats come our way."At least he's paid his constituents with the courtesy of admitting he's not going to Washington to accomplish anything, even before his election.
That's the way they want it, and they're not going to budge until they get it. Shame, really. That's why they're going to shut down the government this summer.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
Uh, things de-escalate on their own all the time. I think you guys are being overly dramatic, like you have a conflict fetish or something.
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 07:19:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
Uh, things de-escalate on their own all the time. I think you guys are being overly dramatic, like you have a conflict fetish or something.
Everything will be fine, once the HNIC is out of office. Of course.
Speaking of real-or-fake as it pertains to Presidents, this is recently in some news...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2Fk5ZPefLzfZKp3rUMH2SOFQ--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD04MDA7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Ftheatlanticwire%2FBill_Clinton%2527s_Porn_Star_Photo-Op%3B-f21546e377c16a0ef19be62cea956e21&hash=92fc1f09b711b08d2ad08c526a0787079e8c8b6d)
Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"? Or "Like a cardboard cutout"? (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 07:19:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
Uh, things de-escalate on their own all the time. I think you guys are being overly dramatic, like you have a conflict fetish or something.
The problem with whipping stupid masses into a frenzy is that you can't unwhip them as easily as you can whip them. Countless propagandists found that out the hard way, when they got what they wanted out of the stupid masses, and then realized that they unleashed a monster they couldn't control.
I'm not saying that both sides have been whipped into a frenzy, but I am saying that one of the sides definitely has been, and that's all it takes. Sooner or later Democrats have to return the favor out of self-preservation if nothing else, because no one is dumb enough to keep disarming unilaterally indefinitely. At some point it's going to be Republicans' turn to be sabotaged at every step by the Democrats, and they can't keep getting lucky and drawing a 9/11 card to buy a couple of years of artificial national unity.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 24, 2012, 08:20:24 PM
Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"? Or "Like a cardboard cutout"? (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)
Seems to be real and to have been taken at a gala hosted by Prince Ranier of Monaco. Nobody seems to know how the porn stars got on the guest list. No indication that Clinton had any idea who they are; he probably posed with a lot of other guests he didn't know.
Apparantly 1 of the 3 women in the pic isn't a porn star, but rather an executive at a drug testing company.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2012, 08:27:15 PM
Seems to be real and to have been taken at a gala hosted by Prince Ranier of Monaco. Nobody seems to know how the porn stars got on the guest list.
The one on the left wasn't on the list. She got in by beating the shit out of four bouncers.
Fatgly.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 08:23:54 PM
I'm not saying that both sides have been whipped into a frenzy, but I am saying that one of the sides definitely has been, and that's all it takes.
Disagree. The whole Moveon thing died a whimpering death even though, as you note, it had been whipped into a frenzy. Ditto for the "Occupy" movement. Soon, ditto for the Tea party. People just can't sustain the kind of emotion that Moveon, Occupy, and Tea Party demand.
Things revert to the mean, even if your tribe doesn't see it that way.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 24, 2012, 08:20:24 PM
Speaking of real-or-fake as it pertains to Presidents, this is recently in some news...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2Fk5ZPefLzfZKp3rUMH2SOFQ--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD04MDA7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Ftheatlanticwire%2FBill_Clinton%2527s_Porn_Star_Photo-Op%3B-f21546e377c16a0ef19be62cea956e21&hash=92fc1f09b711b08d2ad08c526a0787079e8c8b6d)
Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"? Or "Like a cardboard cutout"? (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)
What's the problem. We all know Bill a player.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
What's the problem. We all know Bill a player.
The problem is Bill can do a hell of a lot better than settle for some nasty porn skank. The question is whether he wants to. I mean, he settled for Lewinsky.
I don't recognize any of those porn stars, so they obviously aren't very good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 07:23:22 PM
Everything will be fine, once the HNIC is out of office. Of course.
Heed Mourdock's advice & we'll all get along fine :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 09:48:36 PM
I don't recognize any of those porn stars, so they obviously aren't very good.
I bet Cal could quote their bios from memory.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 08:23:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 07:19:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Something major has to happen to change the situation, it cannot de-escalate by itself.
Uh, things de-escalate on their own all the time. I think you guys are being overly dramatic, like you have a conflict fetish or something.
The problem with whipping stupid masses into a frenzy is that you can't unwhip them as easily as you can whip them. Countless propagandists found that out the hard way, when they got what they wanted out of the stupid masses, and then realized that they unleashed a monster they couldn't control.
The MoveOn crowd eventually chilled out once their bugaboo was out of office, and so will the TeaBaggers. No difference.
Where is the evidence that Moveon.org was actually a movement?
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2012, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
What's the problem. We all know Bill a player.
The problem is Bill can do a hell of a lot better than settle for some nasty porn skank. The question is whether he wants to. I mean, he settled for Lewinsky.
You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.
Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.
I thought moveon was a website.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 24, 2012, 11:02:21 PM
I thought moveon was a website.
Yeah, so did I. There must have been a Moveon.org caucus in Congress at some point.
My aunt still mispronounces Hawaii.
"Guys, would you like to see pictures from our 'Hawaya' trip?" :frusty:
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
How did Languish become so liberal?
Being conservative means being a birther? Then I guess Hans is a liberal.
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2012, 10:48:05 PM
The MoveOn crowd eventually chilled out once their bugaboo was out of office, and so will the TeaBaggers. No difference.
The MoveOn crowd was never a force you make it out to be. It was much more potent as a strawman for people like you than it was at actually accomplishing anything, either from the propaganda standpoint, or from actual political power. The only effect it ever had was booting Lieberman from the Democratic Party, which wasn't such a great undertaking given Lieberman's open defiance and mockery of his party on foreign policy matters. I would argue that Teabaggers can be traced back to early 1990ies, and chilled out only during W's term, for obvious reason.
What is the GOPtard equivalent to Moveon.org? It's a website that has branched out into a fund raising machine.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 24, 2012, 08:20:24 PM
Speaking of real-or-fake as it pertains to Presidents, this is recently in some news...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2Fk5ZPefLzfZKp3rUMH2SOFQ--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD04MDA7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Ftheatlanticwire%2FBill_Clinton%2527s_Porn_Star_Photo-Op%3B-f21546e377c16a0ef19be62cea956e21&hash=92fc1f09b711b08d2ad08c526a0787079e8c8b6d)
Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"? Or "Like a cardboard cutout"? (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)
plus that pic is photo shopped.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 24, 2012, 11:02:21 PM
I thought moveon was a website.
That's all it is.
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 02:28:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 24, 2012, 10:48:05 PM
The MoveOn crowd eventually chilled out once their bugaboo was out of office, and so will the TeaBaggers. No difference.
The MoveOn crowd was never a force you make it out to be. It was much more potent as a strawman for people like you than it was at actually accomplishing anything, either from the propaganda standpoint, or from actual political power. The only effect it ever had was booting Lieberman from the Democratic Party, which wasn't such a great undertaking given Lieberman's open defiance and mockery of his party on foreign policy matters.
Look, someone ritually casting out from their party those who are not radical enough for their tastes. Hmmm....what does that sound like???
Meh, of course you are going to argue that your crazies are not nearly as influential as the purple drazi's crazies - especially since you were/are the Dem equivalent of a Tea Bagger - recall how much you raged against Blue Dog Democrats, how they were not "real" Dems, and the Dems would be better off without them, etc., etc. Pretty much Nordquist without the power.
Tea Baggers are the luny fringe of the Republicans. They are slightly different than the loony fringe that was around when Clinton was President, because the circumstances are different, but it is all one and the same from a systemic point of view.
I will agree with you that their impact could be much more damaging than normal though, due to the fact that they seem to have much more control over the Republican Party than you guys ever had over the Dems. No matter how much you moaned and raged, the moderates/sane members of the party mostly were not forced to go to the nutbar end of the spectrum, while the Republicans have managed to get themselves somehow beholden to their most radical members.
Hence the reason I will not vote for any Republican this time around.
But the idea that there is any fundamental difference between your crazies and their crazies is a figment of your allegiances.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 24, 2012, 08:20:24 PM
Speaking of real-or-fake as it pertains to Presidents, this is recently in some news...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2Fk5ZPefLzfZKp3rUMH2SOFQ--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD04MDA7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Ftheatlanticwire%2FBill_Clinton%2527s_Porn_Star_Photo-Op%3B-f21546e377c16a0ef19be62cea956e21&hash=92fc1f09b711b08d2ad08c526a0787079e8c8b6d)
Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"? Or "Like a cardboard cutout"? (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)
Can't be real.
Clinton still has his pants on. :P
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 10:02:39 AM
Look, someone ritually casting out from their party those who are not radical enough for their tastes. Hmmm....what does that sound like???
Someone's moderation is failing here. There is a middle ground to be struck when it comes to party discipline. One extreme is a party where no dissent is tolerated. Another extreme is a party that has no ideas uniting it, in which case it's not really a party at all. Obviously the optimal point is somewhere in the middle.
Also, in Lieberman's case, he wasn't done in on just on dissent, but also on how he expressed his dissent. Publically lecturing your fellow party members is not going to go down well, regardless of whether it's a Ba'ath Party or the Democratic Party.
QuoteMeh, of course you are going to argue that your crazies are not nearly as influential as the purple drazi's crazies - especially since you were/are the Dem equivalent of a Tea Bagger - recall how much you raged against Blue Dog Democrats, how they were not "real" Dems, and the Dems would be better off without them, etc., etc. Pretty much Nordquist without the power.
I may also argue that because they're mostly a figment of your rather rich imagination. As for me being a Teabagger, that's just an obvious ad hominem troll, so I'm not even going to bother wasting time on it. I am, however, a staunch anti-Repulican, because Republicans as they are currently are utterly repugnant to me. Being staunchly against one party doesn't make me an unwavering adhrent of the other party.
As for Blue Dogs, my argument repeatedly went over your head, but I'll repeat again: Blue Dogs gave Democrats the appearance of supermajority without an actual supermajority, which is the worst of both worlds. Democrats still couldn't do what they in general are elected to do, but there was an appearance that they could. You can't just take a couple of Republicans, slap a D on them, and expect any meaingful change. As stated previously, party has to mean something, a party that has everyone as its member is a party that has no one as its member.
QuoteTea Baggers are the luny fringe of the Republicans. They are slightly different than the loony fringe that was around when Clinton was President, because the circumstances are different, but it is all one and the same from a systemic point of view.
The pretext is different, but not much else.
QuoteBut the idea that there is any fundamental difference between your crazies and their crazies is a figment of your allegiances.
From where I'm sitting, it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground. You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way, that you often just don't think things through at all.
As I said previously, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to take a middle position. Computers can do that. Figuring out when the truth is not the middle, at the risk of adopting an extreme position that would be historically discredited, is where it takes some thinking.
Again, is the Tea Party really some kind of Fringe? They have a caucus. I'm perplexed that someone would think they are the equivalent of Moveon.org which is a website.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 11:00:49 PM
You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.
Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.
He's Bill Clinton. He can do much better than that without increased effort.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 11:00:49 PM
You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.
Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.
He's Bill Clinton. He can do much better than that without increased effort.
I think Bill Clinton just likes ugly chicks.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2012, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 24, 2012, 11:00:49 PM
You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.
Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.
He's Bill Clinton. He can do much better than that without increased effort.
I think Bill Clinton just likes ugly chicks.
THAT'S MY POINT
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 10:27:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 10:02:39 AM
Look, someone ritually casting out from their party those who are not radical enough for their tastes. Hmmm....what does that sound like???
Someone's moderation is failing here. There is a middle ground to be struck when it comes to party discipline. One extreme is a party where no dissent is tolerated. Another extreme is a party that has no ideas uniting it, in which case it's not really a party at all. Obviously the optimal point is somewhere in the middle.
Also, in Lieberman's case, he wasn't done in on just on dissent, but also on how he expressed his dissent. Publically lecturing your fellow party members is not going to go down well, regardless of whether it's a Ba'ath Party or the Democratic Party.
That isn't the point.
Quote
QuoteMeh, of course you are going to argue that your crazies are not nearly as influential as the purple drazi's crazies - especially since you were/are the Dem equivalent of a Tea Bagger - recall how much you raged against Blue Dog Democrats, how they were not "real" Dems, and the Dems would be better off without them, etc., etc. Pretty much Nordquist without the power.
I may also argue that because they're mostly a figment of your rather rich imagination. As for me being a Teabagger, that's just an obvious ad hominem troll, so I'm not even going to bother wasting time on it.
I didn't say you were a Teabagger - I said you were the Dem equivalent. Someone on the radical side of their party who demands that the party represent their position only and is willing to cast out those who do not march to their extreme drum.
I love how you do exactly that in this very post.
Quote
I am, however, a staunch anti-Repulican, because Republicans as they are currently are utterly repugnant to me.
Nothing wrong with that - they are repugnant to me as well. As I've stated. And as you so conveniently edited out of your response. Funny that. The famed DG debate honesty again?
Quote
Being staunchly against one party doesn't make me an unwavering adhrent of the other party.
No, being a radical memeber of the fringe makes you a fringe member though, just like the TeaBaggers.
Quote
As for Blue Dogs, my argument repeatedly went over your head, but I'll repeat again: Blue Dogs gave Democrats the appearance of supermajority without an actual supermajority, which is the worst of both worlds. Democrats still couldn't do what they in general are elected to do, but there was an appearance that they could. You can't just take a couple of Republicans, slap a D on them,
LOL. A perfect example - they are "Republicans" and hence repugnant to you, and probably racists I am sure, since most Republicans are, because they are not radical Dems, but moderates.
I could not have created a better example of you doing exactly what I am talking about if I had written your post myself.
They are not Republicans - they are Democrats. They are just moderate Democrats, but still Democrats just the same. Just because they are not ideologically left wing enough for you, doesn't make them Republicans.
Quote
and expect any meaingful change. As stated previously, party has to mean something, a party that has everyone as its member is a party that has no one as its member.
And all parties have a range of views, at least in any two party system as we have. And in fact, most of the time most of the members will actually be moderates, not MoveOn fringies or TeaBaggers. That is the nature of a two party system. You cannot appeal to most people if your party is dominated by the crazies like yourself and Nordquist.
Quote
QuoteTea Baggers are the luny fringe of the Republicans. They are slightly different than the loony fringe that was around when Clinton was President, because the circumstances are different, but it is all one and the same from a systemic point of view.
The pretext is different, but not much else.
QuoteBut the idea that there is any fundamental difference between your crazies and their crazies is a figment of your allegiances.
From where I'm sitting, it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground. You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way, that you often just don't think things through at all.
Funny you should say this since in the very post you are responding to I state unequivocally that I do not think they are equal, do not have any stated "pox on both their houses" and in fact state that I won't vote for a Republican as long as they allow themselves to be dominate by the lunatic fringe. Where did that part of my post go?
Oh, you edited out so you could pretend I didn't actually say it. How handy.
Quote
As I said previously, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to take a middle position. Computers can do that. Figuring out when the truth is not the middle, at the risk of adopting an extreme position that would be historically discredited, is where it takes some thinking.
Indeed - which is why I am willing to take position that are not in the middle at all, and do so all the time.
What takes no thinking is to just slavishly follow your tribe though, and even go to the extreme of demanding that anyone in your tribe not as radical as you be cast out.
And I would argue that the Moveon crowd in fact had their effect as well.
I remember when the Dem candidates were all trying to one up each other on how quickly they would bail out of Iraq, no matter what the circumstances, if elected. Even ones who stated earlier something very different, like Clinton.
It became anathema to have any position on Iraq other than "We will bail immediate and as quickly as absolutely possible" during the Dem primary season.
Of course, sanity returned once Obama was actually elected, and he went ahead and implemented the very plan the MoveOn crown was screaming bloody murder about.
The Tea Baggers are all crazy, and it is too bad the Republicans seem to have let them take control. And if they stay in control, then I hope they lose big come election time, because the people they elect suck as politicians and leaders. I would MUCH rather have any moderate Dem than any TeaBagger. I stated months ago that I could not support the Republican Party even as tepidly as I had as long as they were dominated by the crazies.
But the difference between your average TeaBagger and your average Dem equivalent is not in kind, but simply in power and circumstance.
Why is the Tea Party considered the "Fringe" of the Republican party? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/15/new-cnn-poll-gop-divided-over-tea-party-movement/ This indicates that pretty damn close to half of Republicans and Republican trending independents supported it. Large fringe then. Possibly larger then those who are against it.
Wait, was withdraw from Iraq some kind of fringe position that only this nebulous "moveon crowd" endorsed? Who exactly is this "moveon crowd" anyway? In fact, I believe the majority of not only Democrats but Americans were for Iraq withdraw in 2008.
Berkut, we can keep going round and round like this, but I don't see what there is to gain. You have too much invested in portraying me as a fringe Democrat, and yourself as a rational political commentator free of any biases, to make an attempt to argue in good faith here.
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 06:44:50 PM
Berkut, we can keep going round and round like this, but I don't see what there is to gain. You have too much invested in portraying me as a fringe Democrat, and yourself as a rational political commentator free of any biases, to make an attempt to argue in good faith here.
You are on record as stating that moderate Democrats are not Democrats at all.
You don't need any help from me to define you as in the fringe.
And I've never claimed I am "free of any bias".
Your right that it won't ever go anywhere - but that is the nature of extremism. Extremists never think they are such, they think they are perfectly reasonable.
But I am perfectly happy to continue to point out when you start spouting the crazy, like the transparently deplorable race baiting in this thread. I don't care much about the argument of whether or not your are reasonable in your ridiculous characterization of the green drazi, but that doesn't mean I will just let your tortured logic pass when you do *exactly* what you deplore others of doing.
I think I see the problem here. Berkut has a different definition of "fringe" then the rest of us. Apparently something that is "fringe" is simply something Berkut disagrees with. So anti-war sentiment and the Tea Party are Fringe not based how widely they are accepted but if Berkut agrees with them or not.
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 08:58:22 PM
Your right that it won't ever go anywhere - but that is the nature of extremism. Extremists never think they are such, they think they are perfectly reasonable.
Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you yourself are not the most reasonable one here? Sometimes the easiest faults to notice in others are exactly the faults one fails to recognize in himself.
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness. "She's crazy. Nuts. Coo-coo. Crazy, crazy, crazy." Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:17:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 08:58:22 PM
Your right that it won't ever go anywhere - but that is the nature of extremism. Extremists never think they are such, they think they are perfectly reasonable.
Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you yourself are not the most reasonable one here? Sometimes the easiest faults to notice in others are exactly the faults one fails to recognize in himself.
The difference is that my claim that you are an extremist is backed up by reason and evidence - I've noted your actions and exeplained why they are extreme (such as your insistence that moderates Democrats are not Democrats at all - a classic characteristic of extremists).
I am sure there are things I am not as reasonable about as I should be - your being just as much a political extremist as a tea bagger isn't one of them though. The accusation in fact, is simply made as an attempt to distract from what I good job I've done of proving your own irrationality.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness. "She's crazy. Nuts. Coo-coo. Crazy, crazy, crazy." Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.
That is a very interesting story.
But I don't carry a gun.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness. "She's crazy. Nuts. Coo-coo. Crazy, crazy, crazy." Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about how things reminded him of old family stories, even though they didn't. "That actually reminds me of a family story," he would start each time. Nobody had the guts to point out that we were all in the same family and would have heard of these stories before, if he wasn't just making them up; either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often started telling even
more "family stories" when he got caught making shit up.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness. "She's crazy. Nuts. Coo-coo. Crazy, crazy, crazy." Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about how things reminded him of old family stories, even though they didn't. "That actually reminds me of a family story," he would start each time. Nobody had the guts to point out that we were all in the same family and would have heard of these stories before, if he wasn't just making them up; either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often started telling even more "family stories" when he got caught making shit up.
I read that family story of yours before somewhere...where was it? Genesis? Or was it in Exodus?
I wish Berkut would stop confusing is opinion with objective fact. That's often the sign of an extremist.
QuoteThe accusation in fact, is simply made as an attempt to distract from what I good job I've done of proving your own irrationality.
Is fucking hilarious.
It is mystifying though why people who claim there is no point in arguing with Berkut and he never changes his opinion insist on spending countless posts debating him. :P
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 06:04:40 PM
It is mystifying though why people who claim there is no point in arguing with Berkut and he never changes his opinion insist on spending countless posts debating him. :P
Indeed; and what is even more hilarious is that they spend all that time accusing him of never changing his mind, when they could be spending that time more wisely conceding that he is right, in this case. :P
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 06:04:40 PM
It is mystifying though why people who claim there is no point in arguing with Berkut and he never changes his opinion insist on spending countless posts debating him. :P
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:59:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2012, 12:51:30 PM
So do I have, at least in part, a background of racism because I'm an anti-Obama person and some anti-Obama folks are racist?
Bah, we decided you were both a race traitor and gender traitor ages ago. You just get the Jewish Ghetto Police award. :P
How fitting that I'm getting told who I should be supporting from a straight, white male.
To be fair, Irish is the lowest grade of white and his heterosexuality is pretty tenuous.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2012, 07:18:39 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 06:04:40 PM
It is mystifying though why people who claim there is no point in arguing with Berkut and he never changes his opinion insist on spending countless posts debating him. :P
Indeed; and what is even more hilarious is that they spend all that time accusing him of never changing his mind, when they could be spending that time more wisely conceding that he is right, in this case. :P
Must be a tribal thing. A person who expects members of a political party to share beliefs is obviously an extremist.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2012, 04:15:26 PM
The difference is that my claim that you are an extremist is backed up by reason and evidence - I've noted your actions and exeplained why they are extreme (such as your insistence that moderates Democrats are not Democrats at all - a classic characteristic of extremists).
Oh, that's different then. When irrational people reach their own conclusions, they know that their conclusions are not backed up by reason and what they perceive as evidence.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness. "She's crazy. Nuts. Coo-coo. Crazy, crazy, crazy." Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about how things reminded him of old family stories, even though they didn't. "That actually reminds me of a family story," he would start each time. Nobody had the guts to point out that we were all in the same family and would have heard of these stories before, if he wasn't just making them up; either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often started telling even more "family stories" when he got caught making shit up.
If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base. The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka). I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.
I lost you there Guller. Why are you calling Berkut a piece of shit?
Crazy people, usually think everyone else is crazy, other than themselves of course.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2012, 09:04:35 PM
To be fair, Irish is the lowest grade of white and his heterosexuality is pretty tenuous.
Maybe, but at least I'm (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shindigz.com%2Fimages%2Fitm_img%2FMBNPAT522.jpg&hash=02453c87e74a87122a36de364b751e014d74bf91)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2012, 09:04:35 PM
To be fair, Irish is the lowest grade of white and his heterosexuality is pretty tenuous.
Maybe, but at least I'm (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shindigz.com%2Fimages%2Fitm_img%2FMBNPAT522.jpg&hash=02453c87e74a87122a36de364b751e014d74bf91)
Care to show proof by way of Birth Certificate?
And none of this short form Bullshit.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2012, 09:04:35 PM
To be fair, Irish is the lowest grade of white
:w00t: :yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2012, 09:04:35 PM
To be fair, Irish is the lowest grade of white and his heterosexuality is pretty tenuous.
Maybe, but at least I'm (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shindigz.com%2Fimages%2Fitm_img%2FMBNPAT522.jpg&hash=02453c87e74a87122a36de364b751e014d74bf91)
I wasn't made in america, but I have done more for America that you ever will.
Quote from: katmai on May 26, 2012, 10:55:49 PM
Care to show proof by way of Birth Certificate?
And none of this short form Bullshit.
I was born at 7:21am on 7/21. How's that for a Baltimore niggy straight-and-box Pick 3? :P
Quote from: Siege on May 26, 2012, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2012, 09:04:35 PM
To be fair, Irish is the lowest grade of white and his heterosexuality is pretty tenuous.
Maybe, but at least I'm (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shindigz.com%2Fimages%2Fitm_img%2FMBNPAT522.jpg&hash=02453c87e74a87122a36de364b751e014d74bf91)
I wasn't made in america, but I have done more for America that you ever will.
I forgot its Memorial Day weekend...
In light of that, can you go and get yourself shot so I can have a drink in your honor? :P
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 06:04:40 PM
It is mystifying though why people who claim there is no point in arguing with Berkut and he never changes his opinion insist on spending countless posts debating him. :P
Because people generally don't like to be character assassinated.
Quote from: Siege on May 26, 2012, 10:58:58 PM
I wasn't made in america, but I have done more for America that you ever will.
Debatable. And stop selling your gear on ebay.cn
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness. "She's crazy. Nuts. Coo-coo. Crazy, crazy, crazy." Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.
That actually reminds me of a family story. The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about how things reminded him of old family stories, even though they didn't. "That actually reminds me of a family story," he would start each time. Nobody had the guts to point out that we were all in the same family and would have heard of these stories before, if he wasn't just making them up; either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often started telling even more "family stories" when he got caught making shit up.
If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base. The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka). I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.
Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.
Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.
I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.
I am amazed you cannot see the difference.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.
Thing is, you're irrational, so you wouldn't accept said objective arguments anyway. That's what's great about irrationality.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.
Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.
I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.
I am amazed you cannot see the difference.
What can I show you? I can make yet again an argument as to why some level of party discipline is required, just not too much and not too little. I can make an argument that being part of a party is about more than just a letter after your name, and that someone who votes against his party on most of the key issues that the party is representing is effectively not a member of his party. But, as it happened in the past, you will choose to not get that argument, and in fact will use the fact of me making that argument as a proof that I'm an extremist. And because I would only quote 18 out of the 20 paragraphs that you would vomit while calling me an extremist, I would also be accused of dishonesty.
So, no, I won't waste time arguing with you. I will choose to devote that time to pointing out how I'm being called nuts by a nut, because I think that's the only argument that is relevant in these kinds of discussions. Everything else is just a pretext.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.
Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.
I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.
I am amazed you cannot see the difference.
What can I show you? I can make yet again an argument as to why some level of party discipline is required, just not too much and not too little.
Of course - and your definition of "just the right amount" includes everyone in the Party agreeing with your level of left wingedness, or else they are really republicans, and not Dems at all. And you *specifically* target the entire group of the center of your party as the definition of those who should be purged for not showing "party discipline". Their crime is by definition not being extreme enough for you.
QuoteI can make an argument that being part of a party is about more than just a letter after your name, and that someone who votes against his party on most of the key issues that the party is representing is effectively not a member of his party.
You can make such an argument, but of course you are simply defining "voting against his party" as "not voting how *I* think they should vote". Maybe they are boting for their party, and you are the one who is not?
A significant number of Dems are moderates and do not agree with much of the non-moderates views on some issues. That is fine, or it should be, in any two party system there is going to be serious divergence within a party on views. Handling that within the party is part of the process. Simply demanding that anyone not pure enough for the radical wing be purged pretty much defines who the radicals are.
There is no way to argue your way out of this. You are on the record stating that you think moderate Democrats who won't vote in the manner the most left wing portion of the party demands are not Democrats at all. There is nothing that defines "fringe" more than the hatred of the fringe towards the moderates in their own party.
Quote
But, as it happened in the past, you will choose to not get that argument, and in fact will use the fact of me making that argument as a proof that I'm an extremist.
I've never ignored the argument, I've shown it spuriousness every time you've made it. Just like I have now. "Party discipline" is somewhat important, but you don't have the Blue Dogs for not being "disciplined" you hate them because they are moderates. You claim they are not even Dems because on the 1-10 political scale they are only a 3.5, and you are a 1, and insist that anyone beyond 2 is a "Republican". Hatred of moderates is a fine indicator of the extremists. It's true in politics and religion.
And yes, arguing that those who do not agree with your views are not Dems is excellent evidence of your extremism. I appreciate your help every single time you repeat that crazy talk.
QuoteAnd because I would only quote 18 out of the 20 paragraphs that you would vomit while calling me an extremist, I would also be accused of dishonesty.
When the two you just so happen to leave out state something unequivocally and clearly, you cut them out, and then proceed to claim I said exactly the opposite of what I just stated, yes, that is very dishonest.
Quote from: Berkut
I will agree with you that their impact could be much more damaging than normal though, due to the fact that they seem to have much more control over the Republican Party than you guys ever had over the Dems. No matter how much you moaned and raged, the moderates/sane members of the party mostly were not forced to go to the nutbar end of the spectrum, while the Republicans have managed to get themselves somehow beholden to their most radical members.
Hence the reason I will not vote for any Republican this time around.
This is what I stated, and you cut out. So you could say this:
Quote from: Dguller
it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground. You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way,
And when you quote the entire post except that one portion, you can hardly claim it was just an oversight, or an attempt to edit for brevity. You cut out the point I was making because it directly refuted your caricature of me that you so desperately cling to - that I am some kind of always in the middle person who cannot take a side ever. Which is so obviously not true it is silly. You've been around here more than long enough to know I am perfectly willing to take sides on both ends of the poltiical spectrum.
I am just not willing to do so based strictly on which end they fall on, like you, or Hans, or Raz, or such.
QuoteSo, no, I won't waste time arguing with you.
Ad homs and strawmen are not really arguments though, so that won't be any kind of actual change.
Simply lying about what I've said isn't really an argument either. I don't at all understand why you so consistently do that. I guess when it comes to politics you just have to be right so badly you cannot help it?
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 10:32:54 PM
If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base. The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka). I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.
Dude, I was just telling a family story. If you want to argue now that "family stories" are just made up by posters to artificially attack other posters, you should have started that when you posted your "family story."
You remind me a lot of the person in my "family story," that's all. If you think I am calling you a liar, well, that's just a matter of whether the shoe fits or not. I am not aware that you've lied today, that I know of.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2012, 02:30:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 10:32:54 PM
If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base. The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka). I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.
Dude, I was just telling a family story. If you want to argue now that "family stories" are just made up by posters to artificially attack other posters, you should have started that when you posted your "family story."
You remind me a lot of the person in my "family story," that's all. If you think I am calling you a liar, well, that's just a matter of whether the shoe fits or not. I am not aware that you've lied today, that I know of.
I'm not sure where you're going with all those contortions, but everything I said is true, within the confines of reliability of memory, and the need to paraphrase from a different language.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on May 27, 2012, 01:37:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.
Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.
I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.
I am amazed you cannot see the difference.
What can I show you? I can make yet again an argument as to why some level of party discipline is required, just not too much and not too little.
Of course - and your definition of "just the right amount" includes everyone in the Party agreeing with your level of left wingedness, or else they are really republicans, and not Dems at all. And you *specifically* target the entire group of the center of your party as the definition of those who should be purged for not showing "party discipline". Their crime is by definition not being extreme enough for you.
QuoteI can make an argument that being part of a party is about more than just a letter after your name, and that someone who votes against his party on most of the key issues that the party is representing is effectively not a member of his party.
You can make such an argument, but of course you are simply defining "voting against his party" as "not voting how *I* think they should vote". Maybe they are boting for their party, and you are the one who is not?
A significant number of Dems are moderates and do not agree with much of the non-moderates views on some issues. That is fine, or it should be, in any two party system there is going to be serious divergence within a party on views. Handling that within the party is part of the process. Simply demanding that anyone not pure enough for the radical wing be purged pretty much defines who the radicals are.
There is no way to argue your way out of this. You are on the record stating that you think moderate Democrats who won't vote in the manner the most left wing portion of the party demands are not Democrats at all. There is nothing that defines "fringe" more than the hatred of the fringe towards the moderates in their own party.
Quote
But, as it happened in the past, you will choose to not get that argument, and in fact will use the fact of me making that argument as a proof that I'm an extremist.
I've never ignored the argument, I've shown it spuriousness every time you've made it. Just like I have now. "Party discipline" is somewhat important, but you don't have the Blue Dogs for not being "disciplined" you hate them because they are moderates. You claim they are not even Dems because on the 1-10 political scale they are only a 3.5, and you are a 1, and insist that anyone beyond 2 is a "Republican". Hatred of moderates is a fine indicator of the extremists. It's true in politics and religion.
And yes, arguing that those who do not agree with your views are not Dems is excellent evidence of your extremism. I appreciate your help every single time you repeat that crazy talk.
QuoteAnd because I would only quote 18 out of the 20 paragraphs that you would vomit while calling me an extremist, I would also be accused of dishonesty.
When the two you just so happen to leave out state something unequivocally and clearly, you cut them out, and then proceed to claim I said exactly the opposite of what I just stated, yes, that is very dishonest.
Quote from: Berkut
I will agree with you that their impact could be much more damaging than normal though, due to the fact that they seem to have much more control over the Republican Party than you guys ever had over the Dems. No matter how much you moaned and raged, the moderates/sane members of the party mostly were not forced to go to the nutbar end of the spectrum, while the Republicans have managed to get themselves somehow beholden to their most radical members.
Hence the reason I will not vote for any Republican this time around.
This is what I stated, and you cut out. So you could say this:
Quote from: Dguller
it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground. You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way,
And when you quote the entire post except that one portion, you can hardly claim it was just an oversight, or an attempt to edit for brevity. You cut out the point I was making because it directly refuted your caricature of me that you so desperately cling to - that I am some kind of always in the middle person who cannot take a side ever. Which is so obviously not true it is silly. You've been around here more than long enough to know I am perfectly willing to take sides on both ends of the poltiical spectrum.
I am just not willing to do so based strictly on which end they fall on, like you, or Hans, or Raz, or such.
QuoteSo, no, I won't waste time arguing with you.
Ad homs and strawmen are not really arguments though, so that won't be any kind of actual change.
Simply lying about what I've said isn't really an argument either. I don't at all understand why you so consistently do that. I guess when it comes to politics you just have to be right so badly you cannot help it?
:lol:
Some people just got tooooo much time on their hands.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 05:44:04 AM
Some people just got tooooo much time on their hands.
Languish wouldn't be much fun if we were too busy to post here.
So this boils down, yet again to: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 27, 2012, 07:29:56 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 05:44:04 AM
Some people just got tooooo much time on their hands.
Languish wouldn't be much fun if we were too busy to post here.
Hence it's entertainment value. ;)
Quote from: PDH on May 27, 2012, 07:52:13 AM
So this boils down, yet again to: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
You have just defined Languish in one statement. Well done, PDH. :smarty:
It's a quote, but a good one to remember.
Quote from: PDH on May 27, 2012, 07:52:13 AM
So this boils down, yet again to: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Not really.
The basic disagreement here is whether or not DG's stance that moderate Democrats are actually Republicans because they won't vote strictly along his far left views is a fair indicator that he is a member of the fringe of his party.
There is no lack of understanding of his position that moderate Dems are not really Dems at all. At least, he has made no attempt to back away from that claim.
He just insists that calling the moderate members of his party traitors and members of the other party in a two party system does not make him an member of the extreme wing of his party, the Dem equivalent of the Tea Baggers and Nordquist crowd.
Which is rather baffling to me - his position on moderate Dems is *exactly* what Nordquist and the Tea Baggers have been insisting on for the Republican Party (albeit with much greater practical success than DGs crowd managed with the Dems). That the bulk of the party MUST accept the positions of the radical members. It is rightly and validly decried as being terrible politics and horrible for the country...when it is done by "the other guys".
It is just "party discipline" when you do it, of course.
Berkut, you need to find out what "fringe" means.
Opposition to the Iraq War and support for the public option are not what I would call fringe positions, but I'm not sure how they're part of core values either.
How do we determine core values Yi? This is not a gotcha question, I'm just curious what your answer would be.
Are you asking how someone decides what their own core values are, or are you asking how we determine what someone else's core values are?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 06:52:06 PM
Are you asking how someone decides what their own core values are, or are you asking how we determine what someone else's core values are?
Of a party.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
Of a party.
That's not an answer to my question.
:huh: I was asking how you can tell what are the core values of a political party. Did I write something strange or something?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2012, 10:39:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 08:09:42 PM
:huh: I was asking how you can tell what are the core values of a political party. Did I write something strange or something?
It wasn't clear in your original question whether "we" was the party or an observer.
As an observer, you look for principles that don't change with the situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2012, 10:39:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 08:09:42 PM
:huh: I was asking how you can tell what are the core values of a political party. Did I write something strange or something?
It wasn't clear in your original question whether "we" was the party or an observer.
As an observer, you look for principles that don't change with the situation.
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2012, 02:37:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2012, 10:39:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2012, 08:09:42 PM
:huh: I was asking how you can tell what are the core values of a political party. Did I write something strange or something?
It wasn't clear in your original question whether "we" was the party or an observer.
As an observer, you look for principles that don't change with the situation.
Assholes, the lot of you.
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Quote from: katmai on May 28, 2012, 02:44:45 PM
Assholes, the lot of you.
Look who is talking. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
Of course, sanity returned once Obama was actually elected, and he went ahead and implemented the very plan the MoveOn crown was screaming bloody murder about.
I don't remember anyone screaming bloody murder about the SOFA on the left. I remember arguing with you because I said that whoever won the policy would be the same - withdrawal on the timetable negotiated by Bush - while you thought there'd be a difference.
I think there is a difference between MoveOn and the Tea Party which is that I can't remember many (any?) elected Democrats actively associating themselves with the Tea Party. I can't think of any example of someone running as a solid MoveOn Democrat. To use a couple of Labour Party examples I think MoveOn were more like the Fabians, a movement that tried to change their party's way of thinking with the blog like the Fabian journals. The Tea Party remind me more of Militant Faction, a little bit entryist in style, a little bit of a party within a party - I'm still unsure if they'll get coopted by the Republican elite, or if they'll manage to coopt the Republican party.
Did the Fabians ever produce prose as lofty and insightful as "General Betray-Us?"
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
:hug: For what it's worth, I hold your opinion at a higher esteem than most others, and not solely because you always say good things about me. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2012, 05:57:55 PM
Did the Fabians ever produce prose as lofty and insightful as "General Betray-Us?"
I think every group that lets kindergartners write their slogans has something equivalent: "unfit to command;" "the one percent;" "don't ask, don't tell."
Just say no!
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2012, 04:22:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
Of course, sanity returned once Obama was actually elected, and he went ahead and implemented the very plan the MoveOn crown was screaming bloody murder about.
I don't remember anyone screaming bloody murder about the SOFA on the left. I remember arguing with you because I said that whoever won the policy would be the same - withdrawal on the timetable negotiated by Bush - while you thought there'd be a difference.
I think there is a difference between MoveOn and the Tea Party which is that I can't remember many (any?) elected Democrats actively associating themselves with the Tea Party. I can't think of any example of someone running as a solid MoveOn Democrat. To use a couple of Labour Party examples I think MoveOn were more like the Fabians, a movement that tried to change their party's way of thinking with the blog like the Fabian journals. The Tea Party remind me more of Militant Faction, a little bit entryist in style, a little bit of a party within a party - I'm still unsure if they'll get coopted by the Republican elite, or if they'll manage to coopt the Republican party.
I think when Berk is talking about the Moveon crowd he's actually referring to the anti-war crowd. Why he calls it the "Moveon crowd", I don't know. Maybe because he doesn't want to admit that more then just democrats and the far left were anti-war. I do remember him being quite upset with the anti-war movement from the beginning.
Quote from: PDH on May 28, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
Just say no!
Government is not the solution, Government is the problem.
Quote from: PDH on May 28, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
Just say no!
I'd argue that, while the campaign may have been misguided, that slogan was great. The ones I mentioned, as well as "General Betrayus," don't even make sense.
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
That may be accurate, but DGuller's characterization of Berkut's position is even more off base.
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
So when he cuts out the portion of my posts where I state the exact opposite of what he proceeds to rail on me about, you think that is pretty much all cool?
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 28, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
Just say no!
I'd argue that, while the campaign may have been misguided, that slogan was great. The ones I mentioned, as well as "General Betrayus," don't even make sense.
To a 20-something in the 80s, "just say no" made no sense, as such long term thought was not part of the gameplan. The slogan resonated with the 40-60 somethings who wrote the checks.
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
To paraphrase the Byrds (and Doobie Brothers :mellow:) copying Arthur Reynolds, DGuller is just alright with me. :smoke:
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
So when he cuts out the portion of my posts where I state the exact opposite of what he proceeds to rail on me about, you think that is pretty much all cool?
You deserve worse.
Quote from: dps on May 28, 2012, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
That may be accurate, but DGuller's characterization of Berkut's position is even more off base.
Explain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2012, 05:57:55 PM
Did the Fabians ever produce prose as lofty and insightful as "General Betray-Us?"
The Fabians did far more stupid things like lofty prose in support of eugenics or G.B. Shaw's insane phonetic alphabet.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
So when he cuts out the portion of my posts where I state the exact opposite of what he proceeds to rail on me about, you think that is pretty much all cool?
I'm staying out that whole mess. I simply said that I believe he's being mischaracterized.
It happens here a lot based on one post or one comment. When one takes ALL of that person's posts and comments into account, however, they tend to be someone entirely different. One person says one thing and they're branded with that "opinion" forever, and any other posts or comments are torn apart or disregarded based on the first comment. As if a person can't ever change their mind or even clarify what was meant rather than what was perceived.
So, yeah, I agree with what Jacob says. DGuller has, overall, come across as a level-headed, upright kind of guy.
Quote from: merithyn link=topic=7623.msg423123#msg423123
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
I'm staying out that whole mess. I simply said that I believe he's being mischaracterized.
It happens here a lot based on one post or one comment. When one takes ALL of that person's posts and comments into account, however, they tend to be someone entirely different. One person says one thing and they're branded with that "opinion" forever, and any other posts or comments are torn apart or disregarded based on the first comment. As if a person can't ever change their mind or even clarify what was meant rather than what was perceived.
So, yeah, I agree with what Jacob says. DGuller has, overall, come across as a level-headed, upright kind of guy.
God grief woman, you're being generous; I'd say it represents at least 50% of the content here.
Not that I disagree with both yours and Jacob's sentiment.
Mongers, that is the worst job of quoting I have ever seen.
And he's seen a lot.
Quote from: PDH on May 29, 2012, 03:31:11 PM
Mongers, that is the worst job of quoting I have ever seen.
:D
Yeah, it's probably a good idea to look at what one posts. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on May 29, 2012, 04:02:58 AM
Quote from: dps on May 28, 2012, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
That may be accurate, but DGuller's characterization of Berkut's position is even more off base.
Explain.
Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.
:berkut:
Quote from: mongers on May 29, 2012, 03:25:54 PM
God grief woman, you're being generous; I'd say it represents at least 50% of the content here.
Not that I disagree with both yours and Jacob's sentiment.
Yes, it does. :D I was actually TRYING to be generous.
Quote from: dps on May 29, 2012, 08:09:43 PM
Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.
And typically very fucking intelligent with his arguments. One of the many reason I enjoy reading his posts. He's just not always right, even if he thinks he is. :)
Quote from: dps on May 29, 2012, 08:09:43 PM
Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.
That's because he happens to agree with you on a lot of issues.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 03:24:31 PM
For what it's worth DGuller, I find Berkut and grumbler's characterization of you and your posts pretty inaccurate.
Agreed. :)
So when he cuts out the portion of my posts where I state the exact opposite of what he proceeds to rail on me about, you think that is pretty much all cool?
I'm staying out that whole mess. I simply said that I believe he's being mischaracterized.
You can't have it both ways - how can you say he is being mischaracterized without saying atthe same time that I am somehow mistaken in my characterization, which requires you to evaluate said characterization.
There is no doubt about what he did, and this is far from the first time he has done something like this when the subject becomes about politics.
Quote
It happens here a lot based on one post or one comment. When one takes ALL of that person's posts and comments into account, however, they tend to be someone entirely different.
When one takes the entirety of DGullers posts into account, he is rather clearly an extremely partisan left wing Democrat. Maybe you can debate whether or not he is REALLY extreme, or just kind of extreme, but he is on the record as stating that in his views moderate Democrats are not Democrats at all, but really Republicans. And not just one or two, but lots of them. If that isn't extreme, then there are no extremes at all.
I can buy the argument that my characterization of him as just as extreme as the Tea Baggers is too much...but only just at best.
His track record of creative editing of posts and stating things about me that he knows full well is simply not true is well established, sadly. That is a separate issue.
Quote
One person says one thing and they're branded with that "opinion" forever, and any other posts or comments are torn apart or disregarded based on the first comment. As if a person can't ever change their mind or even clarify what was meant rather than what was perceived.
You must be talking about some other DG. He doesn't ever change his mind on political matters - they are a matter of great faith to him.
Quote
So, yeah, I agree with what Jacob says. DGuller has, overall, come across as a level-headed, upright kind of guy.
I think overall, DG is a level headed, upright kind of guy...outside of politics.
Then he has a very established track record of not being nearly so level headed, and definitely not "upright".
Someone who is mostly very honest who has been shown to be very much dishonest at times is both things. You can't just pretend the dishonesty didn't happen because most of the time he is honest, or a nice guy.
At the end of the day, your support for someone whose basic point is that
A) Republican opposition/"backlash" against Obama is significantly motivated by racism (rather than simply party politics, ideology, etc., etc), and
B) He is upset that people question his motives, and thinks that is not really very fair.
The irony that he is so concerned about anyone questioning a particular posters motives (for which we have ample actual evidence), while he is perfectly content to impunge the motives of millions based on their membership in the "other" party (with zero evidence at all, except his "common sense") appears to be completely lost on him. Which is rather perfectly normal...for extremists.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 09:17:31 PM
Quote from: dps on May 29, 2012, 08:09:43 PM
Berkut's not particularly partisan, just stubborn.
And typically very fucking intelligent with his arguments. One of the many reason I enjoy reading his posts. He's just not always right, even if he thinks he is. :)
That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish. My bouncing around the political spectrum alone is pretty freaking bizarre, in fact, all evidenced on Languish.
But you are correct that I do think I am right when I am willing to be the person standing up and saying "Yeah, I don't think it is fair to just constantly call millions of people racists because they question the black guy. And it is really unfair to then extend that accusation of racism to the larger group they happen to be a subset of...and when you do it in the cause of furthering your political agenda, race baiting is not just a shitty move, it is borderline racist itself".
Go back and read this thread Meri. Lots of people jumping up and down and calling millions of other racists. And not one single shred of actual evidence provided except appeals to "it is obvious" and "common sense" or even you must be "pretty delusional" not to see this rampant racism.
Sorry, but you can color me "pretty delusional". I refuse to level an accusation of racism without something more than the demand that we take a bunch of Dems at their gut feeling that the Republicans are racists because some of them don't like Obama. YMMV of course, but IMO anyone willing to play use race in such a way like that is much more contemptible than even the idiots who care about Obama's birth certificate.
I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.
Quote from: Jaron on May 30, 2012, 01:47:41 AM
I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpawsru.org%2Ff%2Fsrc%2Ff113657_126800633955.gif&hash=ffce318fa42d6e9666accf654a27ecd649c5e153)
I wanted to stay out of it, because the only thing replying will accomplish is feed more of your insanity, but I need to set the record straight as well. I won't go into arguments, because there is no need for that, but I'll just call bullshit.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:31:53 AM
When one takes the entirety of DGullers posts into account, he is rather clearly an extremely partisan left wing Democrat. Maybe you can debate whether or not he is REALLY extreme, or just kind of extreme, but he is on the record as stating that in his views moderate Democrats are not Democrats at all, but really Republicans. And not just one or two, but lots of them. If that isn't extreme, then there are no extremes at all.
Bullshit. You're taking my theoretical comment about what it means to be in a party, and that it's about more than a letter after a name, and saying that I'm calling Blue Dogs Republicans.
QuoteHis track record of creative editing of posts and stating things about me that he knows full well is simply not true is well established, sadly. That is a separate issue.
I do not creatively edit posts. I simply quote what I am replying to, and nothing more, for clarity. Your original post is still there, it's not like what you say disappears when I do not quote it. When you say that you find Republicans repugnant, good, I don't have much to reply to you with on that, so why should I quote it? You saying that does not put the other things that I am replying to out of context.
QuoteYou must be talking about some other DG. He doesn't ever change his mind on political matters - they are a matter of great faith to him.
That's just pure idiocy on your part. Note that I am not calling you a liar, because I am very much convinced that your memory is naturally selective on matters such as these, and that you remember only the things that reinforce your stereotypes. I'm not going to list out positions that I changed, because frankly, that's a little demeaning. I don't change my positions for the purpose of putting together a defense against idiotic charges of political extremism.
QuoteSomeone who is mostly very honest who has been shown to be very much dishonest at times is both things. You can't just pretend the dishonesty didn't happen because most of the time he is honest, or a nice guy.
Just more of your careless accusations of lying. I'm still curious why you are that paranoid about others. I have a stereotype in my mind about people who are excessively distrustful, but I'll keep it to myself.
QuoteA) Republican opposition/"backlash" against Obama is significantly motivated by racism (rather than simply party politics, ideology, etc., etc), and
B) He is upset that people question his motives, and thinks that is not really very fair.
The irony that he is so concerned about anyone questioning a particular posters motives (for which we have ample actual evidence), while he is perfectly content to impunge the motives of millions based on their membership in the "other" party (with zero evidence at all, except his "common sense") appears to be completely lost on him. Which is rather perfectly normal...for extremists.
There is a difference between making an inference about a group of people, and about an individual. When it comes to a group of people, you have to make an an assumption based on gut feel, because absent a very detailed survey, there is no way to know for sure. Either you say something, and run the risk of almost never being able to prove in a court of law, or you say nothing at all. Given that we're not debating live on CNN, I'm going to tip the balance towards saying what I think is true rather than saying what I can prove in court.
When it comes to individuals, though, you do have a lot more to go on, and there is an actual person you're attacking, so the standard of evidence is much higher. When I imply that there are a lot of racists among the teabaggers, none of them have their reputation directly impugned. When you imply that I'm a liar, that's not as much the case.
What's up with all the cheerleading?
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
Go back and read this thread Meri. Lots of people jumping up and down and calling millions of other racists. And not one single shred of actual evidence provided except appeals to "it is obvious" and "common sense" or even you must be "pretty delusional" not to see this rampant racism.
Ok dude. What evidence do you require? What would prove racism? I think constantly harping on demanding somebody prove they are American enough for no particular reason, and that person happens to be a half African dude, with the obvious intention of harping on the fact he is an "other" to be pretty racist. There is not one shred of evidence that he is does not fulfill that constitutional requirement...so gosh why would birtherism be a good political strategy to go after him besides taking advantage of racism and xenophobia? I have been trying to be respectful here to you and just agree to disagree but for some reason you keep slamming me and dreaming up fantastical and delusional nonsense about me having a political agenda and I am being dishonest. What exactly is my agenda?
And I know you are attacking me personally here because "obvious" and "common sense" are what I said.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 08:37:32 AM
What exactly is my agenda?
:rolleyes: Revolution against the American Ancien Régime.
Quote from: PDH on May 30, 2012, 08:41:38 AM
:rolleyes: Revolution against the American Ancien Régime.
Well yeah :blush:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 04:20:02 AM
Quote from: Jaron on May 30, 2012, 01:47:41 AM
I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpawsru.org%2Ff%2Fsrc%2Ff113657_126800633955.gif&hash=ffce318fa42d6e9666accf654a27ecd649c5e153)
Jaron often posts the opposite of what he really thinks. It's called "trolling".
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
Go back and read this thread Meri. Lots of people jumping up and down and calling millions of other racists. And not one single shred of actual evidence provided except appeals to "it is obvious" and "common sense" or even you must be "pretty delusional" not to see this rampant racism.
Ok dude. What evidence do you require?
The onus is not on me to define what evidence WOULD be needed to prove that millions of people are racist, it is on those who are claiming they are racists.
Quote
What would prove racism?
Doesn't that depend on the racism in question?
There are lots of things that evidence racism. One of those things is bringing up race a lot, where it does not appear to be relevant to the discussion.
Quote
I think constantly harping on demanding somebody prove they are American enough for no particular reason,
Of course there is a particular reason. He is a Democrat, and they are Republicans. That is the reason. It is a stupid reason, I grant you, but a reason nonetheless.
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican. Dens claimed Clinton murdered his press secretary with zero evidence. The list of ridiculous claims made for political reasons without evidence or much sense is rather long, and goes back as long as there has been politics.
Quote
and that person happens to be a half African dude,
See, this is the ONLY actual evidence given. Obama is black, therefore attacks against him are racist. Birther attacks - RACIST! We see it over and over and over again. Everytime someone on Languish attacks Obama, the race card is promptly and consistently played by the usual suspects. I call them on it, and we have 20 pages about what an asshole Berkut is for not seeing the obvious...and yet we still have zero evidence that any of this is significantly motivated by racism.
Quote
with the obvious intention of harping on the fact he is an "other" to be pretty racist.
So accusations that he is a Muslim - that is racism as well?
What about accusations that Romney is no Christian - is that racism, since it is clearly trying to accentuate that his not the same as the rest of us? Or is the attempt to cast a poltiical figure as "different" only racism if that figure is black, even though every single politician undergoes that same attack in one for or another, and some of them actually use their "he is just like us!" as a powerful political tool?
Is it racism then when Clinton is portrayed as "one of the guys"?
Quote
There is not one shred of evidence that he is does not fulfill that constitutional requirement.
So? Since when do poltical parties need evidence or reason to justify political attacks on their opponents?
Just because the attacks don't have logical or legal sense to them does not make them racist.
Quote
I have been trying to be respectful here to you and just agree to disagree but for some reason you keep slamming me and dreaming up fantastical and delusional nonsense about me having a political agenda and I am being dishonest. What exactly is my agenda?
Wow, that is quite the strawman. I don't think I've accused you of anything of the kind.
What I have said in regards to this in general is that I think the constant refrain of "RACISM!" in regards to criticism of Obama is race baiting. It is done by the political extreme of the Dems because it works - it gets even people like you or Tamas to just accept that birthers are racist because it "just makes sense" and after all, nobody likes those nutbars anyway, so it feels good to think the worst of them, validates how nutty they are, and of course how NOT nutty the rest of us are....
Then it is just a handy little fallacious leap for DG to come along and replace "birthers" with "Republicans" since, after all, they are all Republicans anyway, and they are a lot of Republicans, and here was this poll that says x percent of Republicans have some kind of doubt about Obama's birth...and now since we all know birthers are racists because we've repeated it over and over and over again...voila! Now Republicans are all racists!
Hey, look at that....
No, I don't think YOU are doing this, but I think you are the intended victim. This is nothing new or special in political tactics though - it is standard fair, to try to paint the opposing party as ridiculous and extreme as possible, and part of the effort to convince the middle that the extreme is the party is to make the extreme as onerous as possible.
What is funny about this is that the extreme in this case is already pretty amazingly unpleasant without any need to craft all this racism nonsense.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 08:37:32 AM
And I know you are attacking me personally here because "obvious" and "common sense" are what I said.
Your "evidence" that attacks on Obama are motivated by racism being "obvious" and "common sense" are in fact comprised comlpetely of exactly on fact:
Obama is black.
That is it - that is the ONLY fact you have to support the "common sense" claim that some particular attack on him is motivated by racism.
The problem with that is this: Obama is ALWAYS black. He is not just black when the topic of discussion is where he is born. Therefore, if it is "common sense" that attacks on him about that are racism, then it is "common sense" that ANY attack on him is motivated by racism.
You can argue that attacks on him about other things don't make sense on a racist basis...but racism doesn't make sense to begin with (and certainly does not make the nonsense claim that he is not a natural citizen any more or less nonsense), so that doesn't refute it, once you assume that him being black is adequate evidence to level a charge of racism.
Funny, that is exactly what Seedy and friends do...
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 08:46:38 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 04:20:02 AM
Quote from: Jaron on May 30, 2012, 01:47:41 AM
I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpawsru.org%2Ff%2Fsrc%2Ff113657_126800633955.gif&hash=ffce318fa42d6e9666accf654a27ecd649c5e153)
Jaron often posts the opposite of what he really thinks. It's called "trolling".
Quite. ;)
I'm just laughing my ass off at this whole thread.
You know, I think Berkut would've been a fantastic NKVD officer.
Much like Rubashov's 2nd interrogator in Darkness at Noon, he will simply out-will you, dueling you post-for-post, statement-for-statement, word-for-word, in a remarkably disciplined performance of endless stamina, endurance and minutiae, never wavering, never showing the slightest glimpse of fatigue; like an intellectual blasthole drill, he will bore into you continuously until you finally capitulate.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
I knew I could count on you.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
I knew I could count on you.
Go ahead, run a stop sign at a 4-way and kill a classmate and see where that gets you.
OH WAIT YOURE NOT THE DAUGHTER OF A LOCAL PROMINENT FAMILY
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
Well, there is a difference between manslaughter and murder in regards to the suspect.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
Well, there is a difference between manslaughter and murder in regards to the suspect.
Don't tell that to Hurricane Berkut when he's making landfall at Category 4. ZOMG U AKKUSED HER OF MERDER BECAUSE SHE WUAS A REPUBLIKAN
I bet he could be worked up to a CAT 5. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.trendhunterstatic.com%2Fthumbs%2Fhurricane-reporters-video-montage-cnn-reporters-struggle-in-gustavs-blast.jpeg&hash=daf79172cf91b819b423f6b54bf5017a87389017)
Berkut's response to Valmy is one of the most bizarre statements I've seen on this board. Berkut claims there is not "one shred of actual evidence", which is simply not true. People have posted many examples.
Then Valmy responds with
QuoteOk dude. What evidence do you require?
And Berkut responds.
Quoteonus is not on me to define what evidence WOULD be needed to prove that millions of people are racist, it is on those who are claiming they are racists.
So Berkut is saying that onus is for someone like Dguller to define what evidence is required to convince Berkut that millions of people are racist?
That doesn't make any sense!
Frankly I find the birther = racist logic pretty torturous as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 09:46:13 AM
Berkut's response to Valmy is one of the most bizarre statements I've seen on this board. Berkut claims there is not "one shred of actual evidence", which is simply not true. People have posted many examples.
Then Valmy responds with
QuoteOk dude. What evidence do you require?
And Berkut responds.
Quoteonus is not on me to define what evidence WOULD be needed to prove that millions of people are racist, it is on those who are claiming they are racists.
So Berkut is saying that onus is for someone like Dguller to define what evidence is required to convince Berkut that millions of people are racist?
That doesn't make any sense!
That is rather humorous.
That's why,
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leavingmymarc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FBS-Meter.jpg&hash=59caa5b444378faa5f649fccd98d5acfce9624e0)
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 09:43:21 AM
http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/hurricane-reporters-video-montage-cnn-reporters-struggle-in-gustavs-blast.jpeg
Seems like you need to learn when it is appropriate to use images and when it is not.
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 09:43:21 AM
http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/hurricane-reporters-video-montage-cnn-reporters-struggle-in-gustavs-blast.jpeg
Seems like you need to learn when it is appropriate to use images and when it is not.
Well it is a CNN reporter
So can someone clarify for me, Berkut just objects to the claim that birthers are racist? or that they are dumb fucking retards? :unsure:
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:02:01 AM
So can someone clarify for me, Berkut just objects to the claim that birthers are racist? or that they are dumb fucking retards? :unsure:
I dont know. Havent been really paying attention.
Neither have I, hence the question :P
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:02:01 AM
So can someone clarify for me, Berkut just objects to the claim that birthers are racist? or that they are dumb fucking retards? :unsure:
Berkut agrees that they are dumb fucking retards, objects to the use of race baiting as a political tool.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:02:01 AM
So can someone clarify for me, Berkut just objects to the claim that birthers are racist? or that they are dumb fucking retards? :unsure:
Berkut agrees that they are dumb fucking retards, objects to the use of race baiting as a political tool.
Okay i can't really argue with that.
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:02:01 AM
So can someone clarify for me, Berkut just objects to the claim that birthers are racist? or that they are dumb fucking retards? :unsure:
Berkut agrees that they are dumb fucking retards, objects to the use of race baiting as a political tool.
Okay i can't really argue with that.
RACIST!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
Frankly I find the birther = racist logic pretty torturous as well.
It is right up there with the obama=not american logic.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2012, 09:43:21 AM
http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/hurricane-reporters-video-montage-cnn-reporters-struggle-in-gustavs-blast.jpeg
Seems like you need to learn when it is appropriate to use images and when it is not.
Well it is a CNN reporter
That doesn't mean it is appropriate.
:yes:
"I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
When I kill all the whities I see, then whitey he won't bother me,
I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see.
Then I'll get a white woman who's wearing a navy blue sweater..
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
Frankly I find the birther = racist logic pretty torturous as well.
Well there's a shocker.
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 30, 2012, 10:02:01 AM
So can someone clarify for me, Berkut just objects to the claim that birthers are racist? or that they are dumb fucking retards? :unsure:
Berkut agrees that they are dumb fucking retards, objects to the use of race baiting as a political tool.
Okay i can't really argue with that.
However, he discounts the argument that racist birthers are birthers due to racism.
Or that Republicans have been pandering to racists for decades. And yes, I have a shred of evidence that they do.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 10:14:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
Frankly I find the birther = racist logic pretty torturous as well.
Well there's a shocker.
And the obvious corrolary: anyone who doubts that birthers are racist does so because they are racist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:15:08 AM
However, he discounts the argument that racist birthers are birthers due to racism.
He doesn't discount it, he thinks it's pure crap.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 10:14:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
Frankly I find the birther = racist logic pretty torturous as well.
Well there's a shocker.
And the obvious corrolary: anyone who doubts that birthers are racist does so because they are racist.
Possibly, but thick headed, or simply needs their support are good reasons as well. Let's face it, Birtherism is a major force in the GOP. A significant percentage of the base ascribe to it and it gets them really hot and bothered. If appealing to it means victory and attempting to refute it means defeat in a primary, which one do you think Republican politicians are going to do? So if some rubes in Mississippi don't really care for black people, you humor them. It's a necessary evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 10:32:02 AM
Possibly, but thick headed, or simply needs their support are good reasons as well. Let's face it, Birtherism is a major force in the GOP. A significant percentage of the base ascribe to it and it gets them really hot and bothered. If appealing to it means victory and attempting to refute it means defeat in a primary, which one do you think Republican politicians are going to do? So if some rubes in Mississippi don't really care for black people, you humor them. It's a necessary evil.
Read your own post again Raz, this time with the assumption that birtherism is not a clever coverup of racism.
You're also got to deal with the unpleasant empirical fact that we just had a Republican primary in which none of the candidates made Obama's place of birth an issue.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
The onus is not on me to define what evidence WOULD be needed to prove that millions of people are racist, it is on those who are claiming they are racists.
Ok first: why? Why does my opinion require evidence? This is not a court of law I am not trying to convict anybody of anything. They are taking actions that seem to be obviously racist to me. And so what?
QuoteDoesn't that depend on the racism in question?
There are lots of things that evidence racism. One of those things is bringing up race a lot, where it does not appear to be relevant to the discussion.
But it is impossible for it to be a subtext? It must be explicitly stated or it is impossible for racism to exist?
QuoteOf course there is a particular reason. He is a Democrat, and they are Republicans. That is the reason. It is a stupid reason, I grant you, but a reason nonetheless.
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican. Dens claimed Clinton murdered his press secretary with zero evidence. The list of ridiculous claims made for political reasons without evidence or much sense is rather long, and goes back as long as there has been politics.
Yes...and so? Sometimes the stupid reasons are racist or appeal to some other base quality in humanity. This is one of those cases IMO. And of course they are attacking him because he is a Democrat I am talking about using this particular strategy.
QuoteSee, this is the ONLY actual evidence given. Obama is black, therefore attacks against him are racist.
Bullshit. There are tons of attacks on Obama that are not racist.
QuoteBirther attacks - RACIST! We see it over and over and over again. Everytime someone on Languish attacks Obama, the race card is promptly and consistently played by the usual suspects. I call them on it, and we have 20 pages about what an asshole Berkut is for not seeing the obvious...and yet we still have zero evidence that any of this is significantly motivated by racism.
I don't think you are an asshole. I just think the Birther stuff is racist. If I thought you were an asshole I would not be writing this post.
QuoteSo accusations that he is a Muslim - that is racism as well?
What about accusations that Romney is no Christian - is that racism, since it is clearly trying to accentuate that his not the same as the rest of us? Or is the attempt to cast a poltiical figure as "different" only racism if that figure is black, even though every single politician undergoes that same attack in one for or another, and some of them actually use their "he is just like us!" as a powerful political tool?
Nope. Nowhere did I claim that every single attack on somebody that they are different is racism. Just that this one appears to be.
QuoteSo? Since when do poltical parties need evidence or reason to justify political attacks on their opponents?
Just because the attacks don't have logical or legal sense to them does not make them racist.
Yes because I said that it is illogical and therefore it is racist.
QuoteWow, that is quite the strawman. I don't think I've accused you of anything of the kind.
What I have said in regards to this in general is that I think the constant refrain of "RACISM!" in regards to criticism of Obama is race baiting. It is done by the political extreme of the Dems because it works - it gets even people like you or Tamas to just accept that birthers are racist because it "just makes sense" and after all, nobody likes those nutbars anyway, so it feels good to think the worst of them, validates how nutty they are, and of course how NOT nutty the rest of us are....
Ok then why call me out specifically? And I have never been involved in the constant refrain of racism except in this specific case.
QuoteThen it is just a handy little fallacious leap for DG to come along and replace "birthers" with "Republicans" since, after all, they are all Republicans anyway, and they are a lot of Republicans, and here was this poll that says x percent of Republicans have some kind of doubt about Obama's birth...and now since we all know birthers are racists because we've repeated it over and over and over again...voila! Now Republicans are all racists!
Not DG and I rarely even engage DG in debate so why call me out? And I do not think Birthers are racists because it has been repeated over and over again...it is because it looks like racism to me.
QuoteHey, look at that....
No, I don't think YOU are doing this, but I think you are the intended victim.
Yes but exactly did it achieve? It is hardly some surprise to me that there are racists in the US and they can be politically mobilized by the right ploy.
QuoteThis is nothing new or special in political tactics though - it is standard fair, to try to paint the opposing party as ridiculous and extreme as possible, and part of the effort to convince the middle that the extreme is the party is to make the extreme as onerous as possible.
What is funny about this is that the extreme in this case is already pretty amazingly unpleasant without any need to craft all this racism nonsense.
There is no need to craft any racist nonsense. There is plenty of it already existing in this country. I guess I fail to see why you can accuse these people of being amazingly unpleasant and idiots and every other negative thing but oh dear do not think anything they are doing is racist!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 10:14:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
Frankly I find the birther = racist logic pretty torturous as well.
Well there's a shocker.
And the obvious corrolary: anyone who doubts that birthers are racist does so because they are racist.
Nobody is claiming that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
Nobody is claiming that.
Then how do you interpret Raz's comment about being shocked?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:15:08 AM
However, he discounts the argument that racist birthers are birthers due to racism.
He doesn't discount it, he thinks it's pure crap.
There would be no birthers if there were no negroes in Der Weiss Haus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:56:08 AM
Then how do you interpret Raz's comment about being shocked?
Ok maybe Raz is. Either way I am not interpreting his posts :P
We did? A Primary for what? I don't think any of the Presidential candidates openly endorsed birtherism, but Bachman and Gingrich both humored the birthers with talk of "Kenyan mindset", and birth certificates.
Also I never said that birtherism was very clever. It's too obvious to most people.
Obama apparently told a bad Polack joke or something:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100161347/barack-obama-has-insulted-38-million-poles-with-his-crass-and-ignorant-polish-death-camp-remark/
He must be tired-- there's no other explanation for making such a gaffe. He needs some vay-cay- time. Maybe he can get away from the 57 states & head out to the Maldivesvinas for a few days.
I get the rest of that but where did the 57 state thing come from? :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
Obama apparently told a bad Polack joke or something:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100161347/barack-obama-has-insulted-38-million-poles-with-his-crass-and-ignorant-polish-death-camp-remark/
He must be tired-- there's no other explanation for making such a gaffe. He needs some vay-cay- time. Maybe he can get away from the 57 states & head out to the Maldivesvinas for a few days.
Maybe he knows Marty.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 11:11:42 AM
I get the rest of that but where did the 57 state thing come from? :hmm:
Republican "evidence" that Obama is an idiot.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100161347/barack-obama-has-insulted-38-million-poles-with-his-crass-and-ignorant-polish-death-camp-remark
Wow Obama really hates Poland. What is up with Democrats insulting Poland? First John Kerry and now this guy.
Poland wants to be forgotten now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:56:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
Nobody is claiming that.
Then how do you interpret Raz's comment about being shocked?
Looked pretty clear to me. He was shocked because you said what someone on the right would say. I don't see where in the world you got the implication that you were a racist, or that people skeptical of racist connection to birtherism are racists.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
Republican "evidence" that Obama is an idiot.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
Well that is a pretty bad gaff. If Bush had done that you would have had a field day.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 11:11:42 AM
I get the rest of that but where did the 57 state thing come from? :hmm:
Republican "evidence" that Obama is an idiot.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
That link does not disprove what you think it does. He did say 57 states.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 11:30:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
Republican "evidence" that Obama is an idiot.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
Well that is a pretty bad gaff. If Bush had done that you would have had a field day.
I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all. A bad gaffe is the kind that is even remotely plausible, and that reinforces stereotypes. The comment about clinging to guns and religion was a pretty bad gaffe. On the other hand, if you seriously entertain the notion that Obama believes there are 57 states in US, then you are more stupid than you think Obama is. Everyone who speaks long enough eventually trips up.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:37:58 AM
I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all.
Oh come on. Howard Dean's entire political career was ruined when he screamed once and he only named the states, he didn't say something stupid.
And oh for godsake. I have Berkut telling me I am brainwashed by the Demoncrats and then I have DG insisting I am more stupid than I think Obama is. For the record I could never get into Harvard no matter how much affirmative action demanded more Texans.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:29:31 AM
Looked pretty clear to me. He was shocked because you said what someone on the right would say. I don't see where in the world you got the implication that you were a racist, or that people skeptical of racist connection to birtherism are racists.
Fair enough, but this is just a variation on the same theme: the only people who don't think birther = racist are those with an ulterior motive.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:37:58 AM
I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all. A bad gaffe is the kind that is even remotely plausible, and that reinforces stereotypes. The comment about clinging to guns and religion was a pretty bad gaffe.
Bad gaffes are just gaffes that are harmful or embarrassing, and it's up for debate as to whether the "57 states" gaffe is particularly bad or not (I don't think it's the end of the world, but still pretty amusing). The "bitter clingers" thing was not a gaffe as I understand the definition of the term-- he meant to say what he said.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 11:30:49 AMWell that is a pretty bad gaff. If Bush had done that you would have had a field day.
It would have been more of a gaffe for Bush. There are very few universal gaffes that would be a problem for all politicians - I think Brown and the 'bigoted woman' is one - whether something's a gaffe or not depends on how the politician is perceived.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 12:01:53 PMThe "bitter clingers" thing was not a gaffe as I understand the definition of the term-- he meant to say what he said.
I thought that was the definition of a gaffe, a politician accidentally saying something they believe to be true. I think that's a good example though. 57 states would've been a gaffe for Bush, but not Obama. While clingers is a gaffe for Obama but I don't think would've caused Bush real problems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
While clingers is a gaffe for Obama but I don't think would've caused Bush real problems.
Because he never would have said it? ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 08:09:15 AM
What's up with all the cheerleading?
Awh poor diddums. People are talking about someone, and it's not you :console:
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2012, 12:09:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 08:09:15 AM
What's up with all the cheerleading?
Awh poor diddums. People are talking about someone, and it's not you :console:
:(
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:37:58 AM
I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all.
Oh come on. Howard Dean's entire political career was ruined when he screamed once and he only named the states, he didn't say something stupid.
And oh for godsake. I have Berkut telling me I am brainwashed by the Demoncrats and then I have DG insisting I am more stupid than I think Obama is. For the record I could never get into Harvard no matter how much affirmative action demanded more Texans.
:huh: Do you believe that Obama at any point in the last 5 years thought there were at least 57 states in US?
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 12:25:24 PM
:huh: Do you believe that Obama at any point in the last 5 years thought there were at least 57 states in US?
My understanding was a gaffe was saying something silly be accident (like GWB trying to say 'fool me twice shame on me'). It seems you and Shielbh, and maybe the rest of the world, believe it is saying something you think is true by accident.
So then I think it was a bad MISTAKE and he will be made fun of for it.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 12:25:24 PM
:huh: Do you believe that Obama at any point in the last 5 years thought there were at least 57 states in US?
Maybe he studied US geography in that Indonesian jihadist school.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 11:58:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:29:31 AM
Looked pretty clear to me. He was shocked because you said what someone on the right would say. I don't see where in the world you got the implication that you were a racist, or that people skeptical of racist connection to birtherism are racists.
Fair enough, but this is just a variation on the same theme: the only people who don't think birther = racist are those with an ulterior motive.
It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. :huh:
Saying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive. It merely implies lack of impartiality. There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. :huh:
Saying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive. It merely implies lack of impartiality. There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".
Another variation on the theme. Nothing that has been said far is an actual argument or proof that birtherism = racism. It's tautological. "Birtherism is so self-evidently an aspect of racism that people who don't see it have something wrong with them."
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:37:58 AM
I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all. A bad gaffe is the kind that is even remotely plausible, and that reinforces stereotypes. The comment about clinging to guns and religion was a pretty bad gaffe.
Bad gaffes are just gaffes that are harmful or embarrassing, and it's up for debate as to whether the "57 states" gaffe is particularly bad or not (I don't think it's the end of the world, but still pretty amusing). The "bitter clingers" thing was not a gaffe as I understand the definition of the term-- he meant to say what he said.
The way I think of it, bad gaffes are when you say something that is revealing, and/or to an unintended audience. "Bitter clingers" was definitely a gaffe, because even if he did mean to say it to a small circle of people, he definitely didn't mean to say it to the public at large. When the word got out to the public at large, it revealed Obama's disdain for certain kinds of people that he was feigning respect for, which is obviously a PR mistake.
What did 57 states thing reveal? Only that Obama can get tired as well, and misspeak. Only in the minds of idiots could such a gaffe "reveal" his lack of knowledge of basic civic facts. There is nothing really damaging in that gaffe, unless he makes such kinds of gaffes all the time.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 10:51:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
The onus is not on me to define what evidence WOULD be needed to prove that millions of people are racist, it is on those who are claiming they are racists.
Ok first: why? Why does my opinion require evidence? This is not a court of law I am not trying to convict anybody of anything. They are taking actions that seem to be obviously racist to me. And so what?
Your opinion certainly does not require evidence.
You can believe whatever you like, for whatever ridiculous reasons you like. Just like birthers believe whatever they like despite no real evidence that their beliefs are anything but idiocy.
I don't think I understand your point though. This is a discussion board where we discuss things. You have every right to believe in things you have no valid reason to believe in, and I have every right to speak my opinion about that as well.
Quote
QuoteDoesn't that depend on the racism in question?
There are lots of things that evidence racism. One of those things is bringing up race a lot, where it does not appear to be relevant to the discussion.
But it is impossible for it to be a subtext? It must be explicitly stated or it is impossible for racism to exist?
Of course not. My entire motivation for engaging in this debate could be based on my belief that if I do not, the Black Panthers will come and kill me.
That is entirely possible.
Should YOU believe that to be the case, despite me never once saying anything about Black Panthers? Probably not.
Something being possible in theory is not a good reason to believe it is true.
And something being possible in theory is certainly not a good reason to run around accusing millions of people of racism.
You CAN do it of course.
Quote
QuoteOf course there is a particular reason. He is a Democrat, and they are Republicans. That is the reason. It is a stupid reason, I grant you, but a reason nonetheless.
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican. Dens claimed Clinton murdered his press secretary with zero evidence. The list of ridiculous claims made for political reasons without evidence or much sense is rather long, and goes back as long as there has been politics.
Yes...and so? Sometimes the stupid reasons are racist or appeal to some other base quality in humanity.
Again...so?
Quote
This is one of those cases IMO.
One of those cases where you are choosing to believe something is true despite the complete and total lack of evidence that it is true just because it is possible, therefore it is true?
OK. Noted.
Quote
And of course they are attacking him because he is a Democrat I am talking about using this particular strategy.
This particular strategy is being used because there is some question, no matter how silly, of where he was born. Every conpiracy theory hsa some little shred of basis to hang itself on. Why would you just assume that race has something to do with it?
Do you really think that if Obama was an identical person, except white, there would not be "birthers" out there claiming he is not American? Of course there would, just like there were people claiming ridiculous things about Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and every other not black politician.
Quote
QuoteSee, this is the ONLY actual evidence given. Obama is black, therefore attacks against him are racist.
Bullshit. There are tons of attacks on Obama that are not racist.
Of course - and one could claim that those attacks are racist with the exact same level of actual evidence you've provided that THESE attacks against him are racist: None at all, beyond "gut feeling".
Quote
QuoteBirther attacks - RACIST! We see it over and over and over again. Everytime someone on Languish attacks Obama, the race card is promptly and consistently played by the usual suspects. I call them on it, and we have 20 pages about what an asshole Berkut is for not seeing the obvious...and yet we still have zero evidence that any of this is significantly motivated by racism.
I don't think you are an asshole. I just think the Birther stuff is racist. If I thought you were an asshole I would not be writing this post.
QuoteSo accusations that he is a Muslim - that is racism as well?
What about accusations that Romney is no Christian - is that racism, since it is clearly trying to accentuate that his not the same as the rest of us? Or is the attempt to cast a poltiical figure as "different" only racism if that figure is black, even though every single politician undergoes that same attack in one for or another, and some of them actually use their "he is just like us!" as a powerful political tool?
Nope. Nowhere did I claim that every single attack on somebody that they are different is racism. Just that this one appears to be.
Right - but the only evidence given that this one appears to be is that Obama is different, that he is black. WHY does this appear to be racism, but the same types of attacks against Romnery is NOT racism?
Answer: Because Obama is black.
So what does that leave us with: The reason these attacks appear racist is because Obama is black.
Note that there is nothing in that statement that has any relevance to the attacks themselves - and hence the claim is just as logically valid (not at all) when leveled against any other attack on Obama.
Quote
QuoteSo? Since when do poltical parties need evidence or reason to justify political attacks on their opponents?
Just because the attacks don't have logical or legal sense to them does not make them racist.
Yes because I said that it is illogical and therefore it is racist.
QuoteWow, that is quite the strawman. I don't think I've accused you of anything of the kind.
What I have said in regards to this in general is that I think the constant refrain of "RACISM!" in regards to criticism of Obama is race baiting. It is done by the political extreme of the Dems because it works - it gets even people like you or Tamas to just accept that birthers are racist because it "just makes sense" and after all, nobody likes those nutbars anyway, so it feels good to think the worst of them, validates how nutty they are, and of course how NOT nutty the rest of us are....
Ok then why call me out specifically? And I have never been involved in the constant refrain of racism except in this specific case.
I was not calling you out specifically, just using you as an example of how this works. You and Tamas have both bought into the "birthers are racists!" dogma, and based on no evidence or logical argument beyond what amounts to "Birthers are dumbasses, Obama is black, so they are probably fucking racists!" Which is emotionally appealing, granted, but devoid of reason or logic.
Quote
QuoteThen it is just a handy little fallacious leap for DG to come along and replace "birthers" with "Republicans" since, after all, they are all Republicans anyway, and they are a lot of Republicans, and here was this poll that says x percent of Republicans have some kind of doubt about Obama's birth...and now since we all know birthers are racists because we've repeated it over and over and over again...voila! Now Republicans are all racists!
Not DG and I rarely even engage DG in debate so why call me out? And I do not think Birthers are racists because it has been repeated over and over again...it is because it looks like racism to me.
QuoteHey, look at that....
No, I don't think YOU are doing this, but I think you are the intended victim.
Yes but exactly did it achieve? It is hardly some surprise to me that there are racists in the US and they can be politically mobilized by the right ploy.
I don't know what it achieves other than the basic and ongoiing attempt to polarize political discourse in the US into the "Us vs. Them" the extremists in each camp are so fond of.
More generally though, I just find race baiting contemptible, so comment on it when I see it.
Quote
QuoteThis is nothing new or special in political tactics though - it is standard fair, to try to paint the opposing party as ridiculous and extreme as possible, and part of the effort to convince the middle that the extreme is the party is to make the extreme as onerous as possible.
What is funny about this is that the extreme in this case is already pretty amazingly unpleasant without any need to craft all this racism nonsense.
Quote
There is no need to craft any racist nonsense. There is plenty of it already existing in this country. I guess I fail to see why you can accuse these people of being amazingly unpleasant and idiots and every other negative thing but oh dear do not think anything they are doing is racist!
Because there is good evidence they are idiots - anyone who can look at the evidence in regards to Obama's elgibility to be President and still conclude that there is any issue there at all is not operating with reason and rationality. They probalby aren't literally idiots, so much as they just don't care about the truth, and are willing to just ignore evidence that doesn't fit what they want to be true. "Idiot" is as useful a shorthand as any for those types, on both sides of the political spectrum.
There is a difference between being stupid and being racist though, and it is the history of racsim in this country that makes the distinction important and meaningful.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 12:34:27 PM
Nothing that has been said far is an actual argument or proof that birtherism = racism. It's tautological. "Birtherism is so self-evidently an aspect of racism that people who don't see it have something wrong with them."
It would be impossible to prove that. I am NOT saying that little quote BTW, I just look at it and think it is racist because it seems obvious to me. But everybody seems to agree it is so self-evidently bad that all sorts of other bad things can be laid at their feet. Not sure why that is obvious but this requires this huge burden of proof or I have been brainwashed by DG and company....granted only Berkut has said that not you.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 12:39:07 PM
It would be impossible to prove that.
Something that is not susceptible to proofs or arguments is by definition an article of faith, not reason.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 11:58:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 11:29:31 AM
Looked pretty clear to me. He was shocked because you said what someone on the right would say. I don't see where in the world you got the implication that you were a racist, or that people skeptical of racist connection to birtherism are racists.
Fair enough, but this is just a variation on the same theme: the only people who don't think birther = racist are those with an ulterior motive.
It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. :huh:
This entire debate is predicated on your claim that birthers are in fact motivated by a double secret racist motive.
Again, the irony that you get your panties so bunched up over me calling you out for doing EXACTLY the same thing really is high layer e us.
QuoteSaying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive. It merely implies lack of impartiality. There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".
Unless they are birthers, of course. Then their ulterior motive is plainly obvious, and rather handily malicious.
And Republicans as well. They have a significant ulterior motive of racism. There are many reason why Republicans may not be completely impartial, but it is still perfectly reasonable to assume that they are significantly motivated my racism anyway.
Right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
I thought that was the definition of a gaffe, a politician accidentally saying something they believe to be true. I think that's a good example though.
The textbook definition of gaffe is: An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: "an unforgivable social gaffe".
I think you're thinking of a Freudian slip.
Quote57 states would've been a gaffe for Bush,
Har!
Quotebut not Obama.
Obama is smart enough to know there are only 50 states, but I don't think he's as smart as you guys think he is.
QuoteWhile clingers is a gaffe for Obama but I don't think would've caused Bush real problems.
It certainly would've caused Bush some problems with his base.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
The way I think of it, bad gaffes are when you say something that is revealing, and/or to an unintended audience.
Then we disagree on the definition.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
Obama is smart enough to know there are only 50 states, but I don't think he's as smart as you guys think he is.
I'm coming around to the conclusion that he's not a rocket scientist as well. His speeches and interviews have a very formulaic quality to them. Yes we live in a soundbyte age, but I don't think it's too much to hope for that a president engages my intellect as well.
Bubba, on the other hand, I think truly has a massive fucking brain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 12:42:44 PM
Something that is not susceptible to proofs or arguments is by definition an article of faith, not reason.
Bullshit. Some things are subjective.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 12:47:41 PM
Bullshit. Some things are subjective.
You're saying this argument is a difference of taste???
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 12:50:03 PM
You're saying this argument is a difference of taste???
No. It is a difference of judgement. There exists no universal standard for racism that I am aware of. Your standard maybe different than mine. Besides, as I asked before, what exactly would an argument or proof that somebody is a racist or that something is a racist action look like? I am not playing a game where nobody defines the rules.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 12:50:03 PM
You're saying this argument is a difference of taste???
No. It is a difference of judgement. There exists no universal standard for racism that I am aware of. Your standard maybe different than mine. Besides, as I asked before, what exactly would an argument or proof that somebody is a racist or that something is a racist action look like?
:huh:
Why would you level a charge of racism if you are unsure?
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 12:55:17 PM
Why would you level a charge of racism if you are unsure?
Where did I say I am unsure?
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 12:42:51 PM
This entire debate is predicated on your claim that birthers are in fact motivated by a double secret racist motive.
That's not my claim, that's your interpretation of my claim. I made no claims about how explicit the racism is, as opposed to semi-conscious application of double standard.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 12:55:17 PM
Why would you level a charge of racism if you are unsure?
Where did I say I am unsure?
Well you've said that you have judged to be racist but it is a subjective judgment. Sounds pretty much like you don't actually know.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 11:32:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 11:11:42 AM
I get the rest of that but where did the 57 state thing come from? :hmm:
Republican "evidence" that Obama is an idiot.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
That link does not disprove what you think it does. He did say 57 states.
I never said he didn't.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 12:52:46 PM
No. It is a difference of judgement. There exists no universal standard for racism that I am aware of. Your standard maybe different than mine. Besides, as I asked before, what exactly would an argument or proof that somebody is a racist or that something is a racist action look like? I am not playing a game where nobody defines the rules.
The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color. The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 12:34:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. :huh:
Saying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive. It merely implies lack of impartiality. There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".
Another variation on the theme. Nothing that has been said far is an actual argument or proof that birtherism = racism. It's tautological. "Birtherism is so self-evidently an aspect of racism that people who don't see it have something wrong with them."
And that's the beauty of dog whistle politics. When you get called on it, you can say "Oh, you are merely reading something into it I didn't mean". Plausible deniability. Short of some republican strategist saying, "Yeah, we use the Birther thing gin up white racists", you can't prove it.
Now, can you show that birtherism is more likely amongst racists? Yeah, you can do that. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.T8ZiS1LCFOI Can I show that the GOP has pandered to racists voters in the past? Yeah. I've done that. I actually had quotes from Republican strategists who said as much. I've posted them before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:04:12 PMThe part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color. The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.
What sort of evidence would you consider compelling enough to accept that it's the case? What sort of evidence would you accept to not immediately discard the hypothesis?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
I never said he didn't.
Then why did you post the snopes link?
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
What sort of evidence would you consider compelling enough to accept that it's the case? What sort of evidence would you accept to not immediately discard the hypothesis?
Why are you asking me this question instead of asking Seedy & Friends why they think the way they do?
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 12:38:50 PM
Your opinion certainly does not require evidence.
You can believe whatever you like, for whatever ridiculous reasons you like. Just like birthers believe whatever they like despite no real evidence that their beliefs are anything but idiocy.
All I am saying is that their position looks like a racist view to me based on the reasons I have listed before.
QuoteI don't think I understand your point though. This is a discussion board where we discuss things. You have every right to believe in things you have no valid reason to believe in, and I have every right to speak my opinion about that as well.
There is no real point. The question was raised if I think the birthers are racists. Yeah it looks like it.
QuoteOf course not. My entire motivation for engaging in this debate could be based on my belief that if I do not, the Black Panthers will come and kill me.
That is entirely possible.
Should YOU believe that to be the case, despite me never once saying anything about Black Panthers? Probably not.
Something being possible in theory is not a good reason to believe it is true.
And something being possible in theory is certainly not a good reason to run around accusing millions of people of racism.
You CAN do it of course.
Ok if somebody engages in actions that appear idiotic to you, you accuse them of idiocy. I see them engaging in actions that appear racist to me, I accuse them of racism (well not really we are just stating our opinion on message boards not going door to door calling out birthers). We are both aware of the same evidence that apparently is sufficient to label them as idiots but not as racists.
QuoteOne of those cases where you are choosing to believe something is true despite the complete and total lack of evidence that it is true just because it is possible, therefore it is true?
I have already stated my reasons for thinking so. I do not think there is a complete and total lack of evidence I do get that you do not find it convincing. I am not sure exactly what sort of evidence you would find convincing.
QuoteThis particular strategy is being used because there is some question, no matter how silly, of where he was born. Every conpiracy theory hsa some little shred of basis to hang itself on. Why would you just assume that race has something to do with it?
For reasons I have already stated.
QuoteDo you really think that if Obama was an identical person, except white, there would not be "birthers" out there claiming he is not American? Of course there would, just like there were people claiming ridiculous things about Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and every other not black politician.
Well we have to agree to disagree on that one. I can think of no parallel.
QuoteOf course - and one could claim that those attacks are racist with the exact same level of actual evidence you've provided that THESE attacks against him are racist: None at all, beyond "gut feeling".
Again I gave my reasons and you dismissed them. I am not sure why that is "none at all". Just that you do not find them convincing.
QuoteBirther attacks - RACIST! We see it over and over and over again. Everytime someone on Languish attacks Obama, the race card is promptly and consistently played by the usual suspects. I call them on it, and we have 20 pages about what an asshole Berkut is for not seeing the obvious...and yet we still have zero evidence that any of this is significantly motivated by racism.
I don't think you are an asshole. I just think the Birther stuff is racist. If I thought you were an asshole I would not be writing this post.
QuoteRight - but the only evidence given that this one appears to be is that Obama is different, that he is black. WHY does this appear to be racism, but the same types of attacks against Romnery is NOT racism?
Answer: Because Obama is black.
So what does that leave us with: The reason these attacks appear racist is because Obama is black.
The fact that Obama is black is a context in which these attacks are being made and why, IMO, they have significant traction. Of course there is more than that, the xenophobic angle and such. It scratches several bigoted itches.
QuoteNote that there is nothing in that statement that has any relevance to the attacks themselves - and hence the claim is just as logically valid (not at all) when leveled against any other attack on Obama.
Well I disagree. He has an "other" type name and he is black so this particular strategy works...on certain people.
QuoteI was not calling you out specifically, just using you as an example of how this works. You and Tamas have both bought into the "birthers are racists!" dogma, and based on no evidence or logical argument beyond what amounts to "Birthers are dumbasses, Obama is black, so they are probably fucking racists!" Which is emotionally appealing, granted, but devoid of reason or logic.
Why would seeing my countrymen behaving badly be logically appealing? I find it pretty depressing actually.
QuoteI don't know what it achieves other than the basic and ongoiing attempt to polarize political discourse in the US into the "Us vs. Them" the extremists in each camp are so fond of.
More generally though, I just find race baiting contemptible, so comment on it when I see it.
Well I find racism contemptible and sad as well. So I try to be honest with myself when i see it come up.
QuoteBecause there is good evidence they are idiots - anyone who can look at the evidence in regards to Obama's elgibility to be President and still conclude that there is any issue there at all is not operating with reason and rationality. They probalby aren't literally idiots, so much as they just don't care about the truth, and are willing to just ignore evidence that doesn't fit what they want to be true. "Idiot" is as useful a shorthand as any for those types, on both sides of the political spectrum.
There is a difference between being stupid and being racist though, and it is the history of racsim in this country that makes the distinction important and meaningful.
What is the distinction? And how would it be made? I see a guy who looks like "other" and has a name like "other" have a movement against him based on him being "other". That looks like it conforms pretty well with the history of racism in this country.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 01:19:00 PM
Now, can you show that birtherism is more likely amongst racists? Yeah, you can do that. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.T8ZiS1LCFOI Can I show that the GOP has pandered to racists voters in the past? Yeah. I've done that. I actually had quotes from Republican strategists who said as much. I've posted them before.
I suspect that birtherism also corelates well with church attendance, gun ownership, NASCAR, rural, and non-coastal residence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:04:12 PM
The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color. The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.
Well there is another part to it as well and that is his name and the foreign origin of his father and the muslim thing. The xenophobic thing. The second part is that this is a strategy that has been used before by racists in this country. That context is also a factor in my mind.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
The second part is that this is a strategy that has been used before by racists in this country.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 01:21:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
I never said he didn't.
Then why did you post the snopes link?
To demonstrate why someone might fixate on a person tripping over their tongue three years ago.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:04:12 PM
The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color. The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.
Well there is another part to it as well and that is his name and the foreign origin of his father and the muslim thing. The xenophobic thing. The second part is that this is a strategy that has been used before by racists in this country. That context is also a factor in my mind.
That strategy has been used before by non-racists as well. Kennedy is an excellent example.
So once again, the "evidence" is not actually evidence at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:28:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 01:19:00 PM
Now, can you show that birtherism is more likely amongst racists? Yeah, you can do that. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.T8ZiS1LCFOI Can I show that the GOP has pandered to racists voters in the past? Yeah. I've done that. I actually had quotes from Republican strategists who said as much. I've posted them before.
I suspect that birtherism also corelates well with church attendance, gun ownership, NASCAR, rural, and non-coastal residence.
I take you didn't read the article. Or half my post considering your response to Valmy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:32:48 PM
Please elaborate.
Just as you state, actualy openly being a racist is politically untenable for awhile, so to mobilize those forces you have to grab ahold of some other cause. I hesitate to start listing them because I do not want to get into long debates over each of these issues...do you get where I am coming from or do we need to get into this?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
... and the fact that she married a Republican.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:33:58 PM
That strategy has been used before by non-racists as well. Kennedy is an excellent example.
So once again, the "evidence" is not actually evidence at all.
No it is evidence and contexts that you do not find convincing. It is still evidence and contexts though.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 01:36:46 PM
I take you didn't read the article. Or half my post considering your response to Valmy.
I read your entire post. I just read your link. At least it's an attempt at reasoned argument.
Valmy: I suppose you're talking about Willie Horton?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:22:36 PMWhy are you asking me this question instead of asking Seedy & Friends why they think the way they do?
Because I'm interested in your reasoning.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
... and the fact that she married a Republican.
That doesn't make you a Republican, it just makes you a dirty filthy whore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 01:40:56 PM
... and the fact that she married a Republican.
That doesn't make you a Republican, it just makes you a dirty filthy whore.
I want to officially register my objection to this characterization of Laura Bush, and I want to point out that Seedy's views do not necessarily reflect the views of DGuller. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2012, 01:57:38 PM
Because I'm interested in your reasoning.
And you're not interested in theirs? :lol:
I would need some evidence of volition. An open mike gaffe, a secret memo, a leaked email, something like that. A letter from Roger Ailes to Rush Limbaugh (does he do birtherism?) stating, "yeah, this birther stuff is BS but it's an effective way of mobilizing white racist antipathy towards Obama so let's play it for all it's worth."
I think the simpler explanations for birtherism make much more sense than this wacked out plot idea.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:33:58 PM
That strategy has been used before by non-racists as well. Kennedy is an excellent example.
So once again, the "evidence" is not actually evidence at all.
No it is evidence and contexts that you do not find convincing. It is still evidence and contexts though.
Evidence that has been shown to be spurious is not evidence.
Your claim was that this was a unique phenomenon, and hence has a unique root cause (racism).
But it is not unique, and in fact has been used against about as lily white a President as there could be - so how can it be certainly racist? How can it be racist when it was used against John F. Freaking Kennedy?
Your argument is like saying that the moon landings were fake because the flag would not "fly" on the moon, then when someone points out that the flag as not cloth, insisting "Well, it is still evidence that we didn't land on the moon, even if YOU don't find it compelling!"
This is EXACTLY what the brithers are doing, btw - simply discounting any argument or evidence that flies in the face of their cherished belief that Obama was not born in the USA.
"No it is evidence and contexts that you do not find convincing. It is still evidence and contexts though."
That statement makes exactly as much sense when stated in response to someone showing a birther Obama's Hawaii birth certificate to refute their "evidence" that he was born in Kenya.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 01:40:56 PM
... and the fact that she married a Republican.
That doesn't make you a Republican, it just makes you a dirty filthy whore.
I want to officially register my objection to this characterization of Laura Bush, and I want to point out that Seedy's views do not necessarily reflect the views of DGuller. :mad:
Berkut disagrees. You hate her because she's a Republican.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 01:49:01 PM
Valmy: I suppose you're talking about Willie Horton?
Yes. That is a good one. The best ones usually have excellent non-racist reasons to have that opinion. Affirmative action, school busing, being tough on criminals, drug policy, illegal immigration...those are great ones because they are sanitized by having lots of non-racists have a certain stand on them but you can also use them (in different ways than to a mainstream audience usually and usually by very different sorts of politicians and organizations) to mobilize racists. The birther and Willie Horton ad are a bit unusual because they are alot more brazen (no offense Brazen) than usual.
There's a birther ad?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 08:56:29 AM
Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.
I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.
... and the fact that she married a Republican.
That doesn't make you a Republican, it just makes you a dirty filthy whore.
Let's not bring Sandra Fluke back into this, plz.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 02:06:43 PM
But it is not unique, and in fact has been used against about as lily white a President as there could be - so how can it be certainly racist? How can it be racist when it was used against John F. Freaking Kennedy?
It was used in a xenophobic way. Xenophobes and racists are not identical people but sometimes they can be fellow travelers.
QuoteYour argument is like saying that the moon landings were fake because the flag would not "fly" on the moon, then when someone points out that the flag as not cloth, insisting "Well, it is still evidence that we didn't land on the moon, even if YOU don't find it compelling!"
It is not like saying that at all. You have not shown me any hard physical evidence.
QuoteThis is EXACTLY what the brithers are doing, btw - simply discounting any argument or evidence that flies in the face of their cherished belief that Obama was not born in the USA.
I do not particularly cherish this. Why would I cherish this sort of thing?
And you asked me before what is the point? Well this is it really. You keep attacking me so I feel the need to defend myself. So now what I am doing is what the birthers are doing.
Quote"No it is evidence and contexts that you do not find convincing. It is still evidence and contexts though."
That statement makes exactly as much sense when stated in response to someone showing a birther Obama's Hawaii birth certificate to refute their "evidence" that he was born in Kenya.
Ok so unless I find something that convinces you personally I make no sense and am a birther? Oh for Godsake.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:09:54 PM
There's a birther ad?
No. Sorry bad English on my part. The Birther Movement and the Willie Horton ad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
Do you know who does? Aside from The Donald.
Pretty sure nobody respectable in the Republican Party does...unless you consider this dufus from Arizona respectable.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:06:30 PM
Rush Limbaugh (does he do birtherism?)
No.
Incorrect. Limbaugh has no problem questioning Obama's citizenship. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104110017
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
Do you know who does? Aside from The Donald.
Pretty sure nobody respectable in the Republican Party does...unless you consider this dufus from Arizona respectable.
That and several congressmen and Senators. Also about half the base.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:09:54 PM
There's a birther ad?
An Ad? They've got a whole infomercial. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/as_seen_on_tv_birthermercial_asks_where_was_obama.php
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
Do you know who does? Aside from The Donald.
Pretty sure nobody respectable in the Republican Party does...unless you consider this dufus from Arizona respectable.
Yeah luckily House GOP members like Rep. Cliff Stearns (R) of Florida, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R) of Missouri or Rep. Mike Coffman (R) of Colorado aren't respectable.
Neither are North Carolina GOP candidates like Jim Pendergraph, or or Iowa State GOP Chairman Don Racheter.
Whew. Thank Kenya they're not respectable members of the Republican Party.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 02:06:43 PM
But it is not unique, and in fact has been used against about as lily white a President as there could be - so how can it be certainly racist? How can it be racist when it was used against John F. Freaking Kennedy?
It was used in a xenophobic way. Xenophobes and racists are not identical people but sometimes they can be fellow travelers.
So? If your argument was that birthers are xenophobic, then I would agree.
But your argument is that they are racist, and your reasons do not support that argument. In this case it supports that they are xenophobic.
And now since that argument has been refuted, you are going with "Well, racists and xenophonbes are fellow travellers, so therefore this evidence that they are xenophobes should be accepted as evidence that they are racists as well".
Again, if that argument is valid, it applies to Kennedy. And Romney. So I guess anyone who points out that Romney is not a Christian is actually a racist?
Why not just admit that perhaps the charge of racism was not well considered, rather than tie yourself into such contortions in an effort to hang onto it?
Quote
QuoteYour argument is like saying that the moon landings were fake because the flag would not "fly" on the moon, then when someone points out that the flag as not cloth, insisting "Well, it is still evidence that we didn't land on the moon, even if YOU don't find it compelling!"
It is not like saying that at all. You have not shown me any hard physical evidence.
I cannot show you hard physical evidence of something that I think does not exist. I can refute your evidence however, which I have done. But it doesn't seem to matter to you.
Quote
QuoteThis is EXACTLY what the brithers are doing, btw - simply discounting any argument or evidence that flies in the face of their cherished belief that Obama was not born in the USA.
I do not particularly cherish this. Why would I cherish this sort of thing?
And you asked me before what is the point? Well this is it really. You keep attacking me so I feel the need to defend myself. So now what I am doing is what the birthers are doing.
What you are doing is what all people who make bad assumptions based on poor information and are then unwilling to admit they may have made a mistake do - they simply ignore data to the contrary, and dismiss any problems with their own reasoning as "not really important to them"...
Quote
Quote"No it is evidence and contexts that you do not find convincing. It is still evidence and contexts though."
That statement makes exactly as much sense when stated in response to someone showing a birther Obama's Hawaii birth certificate to refute their "evidence" that he was born in Kenya.
Ok so unless I find something that convinces you personally I make no sense and am a birther? Oh for Godsake.
No, insisting that evidence that has been shown to not apply is still evidence is the same kind of thinking that birthers use to insist that Obama is not a natural US citizen no matter how much their evidence is refuted.
It does not make you a birther.
But it is that exact same weak rigor in your thinking that leads people to start believing nutty things like Obama is not the President, or the US never landed on the moon, or Bush was behind 9-11.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
Do you know who does? Aside from The Donald.
Pretty sure nobody respectable in the Republican Party does...unless you consider this dufus from Arizona respectable.
Yeah luckily House GOP members like Rep. Cliff Stearns (R) of Florida, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R) of Missouri or Rep. Mike Coffman (R) of Colorado aren't respectable.
Neither are North Carolina GOP candidates like Jim Pendergraph, or or Iowa State GOP Chairman Don Racheter.
Whew. Thank Kenya they're not respectable members of the Republican Party.
Vicky Harzler is our congresswoman. She used to be known as "Vicky the Hartzler", because of her habit of screaming at state employees. In a state where the state employees are some of the worst paid in the country that was a real plus with the bumpkin crowd.
Xenophobic is not accurate in this case. The correct term is "Bigot". And yeah, the attacks on people's religions are bigotry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
Do you know who does? Aside from The Donald.
Pretty sure nobody respectable in the Republican Party does...unless you consider this dufus from Arizona respectable.
Yeah luckily House GOP members like Rep. Cliff Stearns (R) of Florida, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R) of Missouri or Rep. Mike Coffman (R) of Colorado aren't respectable.
Neither are North Carolina GOP candidates like Jim Pendergraph, or or Iowa State GOP Chairman Don Racheter.
Whew. Thank Kenya they're not respectable members of the Republican Party.
Yeah, I don't think anyone can pretend the birther spazs are completely marginal. Theya re a fringe, but the Republicans *unlike the Dems* right now are catering to their crazies in a way that is rather disturbing.
I haven't seen anything like this since Gulf War 2 and the MoveOn crowd, where the nuts start running the asylum.
I guess the one bright side to the birthers is that fundamentally, it is such a stupid issue that doesn't matter in any meaningful way. Not that the nutbar end of the Republican Party doesn't have plenty of issues that do matter, but this isn't one of them.
Again with the Moveon crowd. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 02:27:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
Do you know who does? Aside from The Donald.
Pretty sure nobody respectable in the Republican Party does...unless you consider this dufus from Arizona respectable.
That and several congressmen and Senators. Also about half the base.
So, nobody respectable.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 02:42:37 PM
Again with the Moveon crowd. :lol:
Hey, you quoted Media Matters. What do you have against them then?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:06:30 PMAnd you're not interested in theirs? :lol:
No, I'm pretty comfortable with their reasoning. I think I understand what they're saying, and I get where they're coming from. I'm not sure I have a good grip on your argument.
QuoteI would need some evidence of volition. An open mike gaffe, a secret memo, a leaked email, something like that. A letter from Roger Ailes to Rush Limbaugh (does he do birtherism?) stating, "yeah, this birther stuff is BS but it's an effective way of mobilizing white racist antipathy towards Obama so let's play it for all it's worth."
Okay. Personally, I think that's a pretty high standard of proof.
QuoteI think the simpler explanations for birtherism make much more sense than this wacked out plot idea.
I expect that's the disconnect there. First off, I think racism is a pretty simple explanation, quite possibly the simplest; secondly, I don't think anyone is alleging any sort of plot, wacked out or not.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
So? If your argument was that birthers are xenophobic, then I would agree.
You know what? That works and basically gets my point across. I will go with that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 30, 2012, 02:45:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 02:42:37 PM
Again with the Moveon crowd. :lol:
Hey, you quoted Media Matters. What do you have against them then?
They had the audio quote of Limbaugh.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 02:52:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
So? If your argument was that birthers are xenophobic, then I would agree.
You know what? That works and basically gets my point across. I will go with that.
I don't think the word "Xenophobic" is the best one though. The word "Bigot" is more accurate. Kennedy wasn't from a different country. Nor was his father.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:06:30 PM
Rush Limbaugh (does he do birtherism?)
No.
Incorrect. Limbaugh has no problem questioning Obama's citizenship. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104110017
I've listened to him enough to know he's not a birther. He's stated on multiple occasions that he thinks Obama keeps stringing birthers along for his own gain.
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2012, 02:51:04 PM
Okay. Personally, I think that's a pretty high standard of proof.
Then tell me what proof you have found convincing.
QuoteI expect that's the disconnect there. First off, I think racism is a pretty simple explanation, quite possibly the simplest; secondly, I don't think anyone is alleging any sort of plot, wacked out or not.
The simplest explanation is that there are a lot of stupid people in this country who are willing to believe stupid shit they see, hear or read. And that stupid Americans are very willing to latch on to stupdity as long as it makes their partisan opponents look bad.
Again with the plot, it may be just Raz. I thought he had been claiming that some group of unnamed Republican opinion shapers had been disseminating the birther myth so that white racist voters, who are ashamed to openly voice their bigotry, would have a channel to express and mobilize their Obama-hatred in a more socially accetable manner.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 03:02:01 PM
I've listened to him enough to know he's not a birther. He's stated on multiple occasions that he thinks Obama keeps stringing birthers along for his own gain.
Awesome. That is classic Limbaugh.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 03:02:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:06:30 PM
Rush Limbaugh (does he do birtherism?)
No.
Incorrect. Limbaugh has no problem questioning Obama's citizenship. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104110017
I've listened to him enough to know he's not a birther. He's stated on multiple occasions that he thinks Obama keeps stringing birthers along for his own gain.
So when he was saying there were real questions about Obama's citizenship he is in fact doing the President's biding?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:08:48 PM
So when he was saying there were real questions about Obama's citizenship he is in fact doing the President's biding?
Is or was? How recent do you think that audio clip actually is?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:04:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2012, 02:51:04 PM
Okay. Personally, I think that's a pretty high standard of proof.
Then tell me what proof you have found convincing.
QuoteI expect that's the disconnect there. First off, I think racism is a pretty simple explanation, quite possibly the simplest; secondly, I don't think anyone is alleging any sort of plot, wacked out or not.
The simplest explanation is that there are a lot of stupid people in this country who are willing to believe stupid shit they see, hear or read. And that stupid Americans are very willing to latch on to stupdity as long as it makes their partisan opponents look bad.
Again with the plot, it may be just Raz. I thought he had been claiming that some group of unnamed Republican opinion shapers had been disseminating the birther myth so that white racist voters, who are ashamed to openly voice their bigotry, would have a channel to express and mobilize their Obama-hatred in a more socially accetable manner.
Plot? It's called strategy. Political parties and individual candidates have strategists. They typically don't make their strategies public. If you want to qualify all political strategy as a "plot", you can. It's weird, but if you want to do it, I suppose you can. You do believe in strategists right? I never said they created the myth. Just that they exploit it.
Question: Do you think that some people who have socially unacceptable intolerances hide them to avoid social sanction?
Sure.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:08:48 PM
So when he was saying there were real questions about Obama's citizenship he is in fact doing the President's biding?
Is or was? How recent do you think that audio clip actually is?
Why? Does the truth change with time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:19:28 PM
Sure.
All right, if you wanted to communicate your agreement or support of that intolerance in pubic with out overtly saying in and risking social sanction, how would you do it?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:24:42 PM
All right, if you wanted to communicate your agreement or support of that intolerance in pubic with out overtly saying in and risking social sanction, how would you do it?
Take principled positions on issues like affirmative action.
IMO, I doubt he ever really took that crap seriously, and would not be surprised if he's making fun of them himself. There was a recent thing about some book promotion from the 80s that mistakenly claimed Obama was born in Kenya. I think the mainstream conservo-radio guys were calling them on it because it was a lie and there's proof he was born in Hawaii.
They obviously can't still claim the birther thing and still bitch about that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:26:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:24:42 PM
All right, if you wanted to communicate your agreement or support of that intolerance in pubic with out overtly saying in and risking social sanction, how would you do it?
Take principled positions on issues like affirmative action.
I didn't say what the intolerance was. So you'll need to generalize a bit more. What if the Intolerance is against Jews or Catholics or the Japanese?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
You know, I think Berkut would've been a fantastic NKVD officer.
Much like Rubashov's 2nd interrogator in Darkness at Noon, he will simply out-will you, dueling you post-for-post, statement-for-statement, word-for-word, in a remarkably disciplined performance of endless stamina, endurance and minutiae, never wavering, never showing the slightest glimpse of fatigue; like an intellectual blasthole drill, he will bore into you continuously until you finally capitulate.
Bumped. Because you're all about to be shot in the morning.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 30, 2012, 03:27:00 PM
IMO, I doubt he ever really took that crap seriously, and would not be surprised if he's making fun of them himself. There was a recent thing about some book promotion from the 80s that mistakenly claimed Obama was born in Kenya. I think the mainstream conservo-radio guys were calling them on it because it was a lie and there's proof he was born in Hawaii.
They obviously can't still claim the birther thing and still bitch about that.
Or he's just contradictory and says a lot of bullshit to fill three hours a day. Or he just changed his mind. Or he takes a lot of drugs and forgot what he said from one day to the next.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:28:25 PM
I didn't say what the intolerance was. So you'll need to generalize a bit more. What if the Intolerance is against Jews or Catholics or the Japanese?
Actually, let's start over. I don't you can signal support for black hatred without facing censure.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:20:11 PM
Why? Does the truth change with time?
Yes, it can-- if someone changes their mind on a subject.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:28:25 PM
I didn't say what the intolerance was. So you'll need to generalize a bit more. What if the Intolerance is against Jews or Catholics or the Japanese?
Actually, let's start over. I don't you can signal support for black hatred without facing censure.
Try again.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 03:33:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:20:11 PM
Why? Does the truth change with time?
Yes, it can-- if someone changes their mind on a subject.
So one day it's a legitimate question and the next it's plot by the President to make you look stupid? How does changing your mind affect that?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
So one day it's a legitimate question and the next it's plot by the President to make you look stupid? How does changing your mind affect that?
Pretty sure he means it's okay to call RL a birther years ago when he was one, but if he later changed his mind it's no longer true to call him a birther.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:38:15 PM
I didn't understand what you wrote.
It's Bantu for fuck you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 30, 2012, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
So one day it's a legitimate question and the next it's plot by the President to make you look stupid? How does changing your mind affect that?
Pretty sure he means it's okay to call RL a birther years ago when he was one, but if he later changed his mind it's no longer true to call him a birther.
Fair enough, then he was doing Obama's bidding a few years ago. Correct? Unless it only became Obama's plot recently.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:41:35 PM
Fair enough, then he was doing Obama's bidding a few years ago. Correct? Unless it only became Obama's plot recently.
It probably became Obama's plot as soon as Limbaugh realized it was not true. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:40:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:38:15 PM
I didn't understand what you wrote.
It's Bantu for fuck you.
To be fair, you did leave out a word. I think it's "think", but I'm not sure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:40:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:38:15 PM
I didn't understand what you wrote.
It's Bantu for fuck you.
I see. The English phrase "Fuck you". Means, I concede, you are correct. Thank you, and come again.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 30, 2012, 03:27:00 PM
IMO, I doubt he ever really took that crap seriously, and would not be surprised if he's making fun of them himself. There was a recent thing about some book promotion from the 80s that mistakenly claimed Obama was born in Kenya. I think the mainstream conservo-radio guys were calling them on it because it was a lie and there's proof he was born in Hawaii.
They obviously can't still claim the birther thing and still bitch about that.
The take of both Beck and Hannity was that it was evidence that Obama tends to change his identity whenever he thinks it will help him-- e.g., being "born in Kenya" made him a more marketable writer in the 90s.
I did LOL when I saw it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.breitbart.com%2Fmediaserver%2FBreitbart%2FBig-Government%2F2012%2F05%2F09%2FObama-Closeup-2.png&hash=e24f6bb5779ee3c394be8025095f98bba057bcf4)
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
So one day it's a legitimate question and the next it's plot by the President to make you look stupid? How does changing your mind affect that?
He has admitting to falling for Democrat 'ruses' in the past.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
So one day it's a legitimate question and the next it's plot by the President to make you look stupid? How does changing your mind affect that?
He has admitting to falling for Democrat 'ruses' in the past.
I see, perhaps what he is saying is now will later be revealed to be a Democratic ruse as well. It must be exciting being a Republican. Like living in the Soviet Union.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 03:40:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 03:38:15 PM
I didn't understand what you wrote.
It's Bantu for fuck you.
To be fair, you did leave out a word. I think it's "think", but I'm not sure.
Ah, that was it. I think Yi is unhappy because I caused him to think how an unscrupulous politician might pander to a racist. I don't think he liked the conclusion he came to. Perhaps he will understand why some of us are suspicious of racism in the GOP.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
I see, perhaps what he is saying is now will later be revealed to be a Democratic ruse as well. It must be exciting being a Republican. Like living in the Soviet Union.
First, he's an entertainer. Second, lots of otherwise smart Democrats have some pretty odd beliefs.
It really wouldn't hurt you to drop the ueber-partisan bullshit sometimes.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
I see, perhaps what he is saying is now will later be revealed to be a Democratic ruse as well. It must be exciting being a Republican. Like living in the Soviet Union.
First, he's an entertainer. Second, lots of otherwise smart Democrats have some pretty odd beliefs.
It really wouldn't hurt you to drop the ueber-partisan bullshit sometimes.
An entertainer? Oh, well so am I.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 04:26:25 PM
An entertainer? Oh, well so am I.
You're missing a crucial element of being an entertainer ;)
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 04:26:25 PM
An entertainer? Oh, well so am I.
You're missing a crucial element of being an entertainer ;)
I can't afford to have a drug habit.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
The textbook definition of gaffe is: An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: "an unforgivable social gaffe".
I think you're thinking of a Freudian slip.
I thought Mencken came up with it, but it was some NYT writer: 'a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say.'
QuoteObama is smart enough to know there are only 50 states, but I don't think he's as smart as you guys think he is.
I don't know what you mean by I how smart he is. I've never bought this Spock-Obama, constitutional scholar line.
But I think people don't see Obama as stupid, even his critics. So him saying something stupid just comes across as that, it doesn't feed into some pre-existing criticism of Obama. The clinger comment did feed into the whole elite, wine track v beer track, 'does he connect with white non-college educated men' debate.
It's a bit like I think the bar for a gaffe is always going to be very high for Biden because gaffes are sort-of priced in to Biden's image. Things that could cause serious damage to another politician are just a normal Tuesday afternoon for Biden.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2012, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
The textbook definition of gaffe is: An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: "an unforgivable social gaffe".
I think you're thinking of a Freudian slip.
I thought Mencken came up with it, but it was some NYT writer: 'a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say.'
Hmm...a definition of a word that is stated not to be in any dictionary. ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 05:38:47 PM
Hmm...a definition of a word that is stated not to be in any dictionary. ;)
Which is why General Haig never committed one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
You know, I think Berkut would've been a fantastic NKVD officer.
Much like Rubashov's 2nd interrogator in Darkness at Noon, he will simply out-will you, dueling you post-for-post, statement-for-statement, word-for-word, in a remarkably disciplined performance of endless stamina, endurance and minutiae, never wavering, never showing the slightest glimpse of fatigue; like an intellectual blasthole drill, he will bore into you continuously until you finally capitulate.
That is one of the purest and least ambiguous ad homs in recent forum history. Well-done. Not a single line anywhere that refers to an argument the man has made; it is purely an argument to the man.
It is, of course, a logical fallacy, but it is pure, and an example for all to note and admire. Not a trace of logic in it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2012, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
You know, I think Berkut would've been a fantastic NKVD officer.
Much like Rubashov's 2nd interrogator in Darkness at Noon, he will simply out-will you, dueling you post-for-post, statement-for-statement, word-for-word, in a remarkably disciplined performance of endless stamina, endurance and minutiae, never wavering, never showing the slightest glimpse of fatigue; like an intellectual blasthole drill, he will bore into you continuously until you finally capitulate.
That is one of the purest and least ambiguous ad homs in recent forum history. Well-done. Not a single line anywhere that refers to an argument the man has made; it is purely an argument to the man.
It is, of course, a logical fallacy, but it is pure, and an example for all to note and admire. Not a trace of logic in it.
In the end...
*flicks ashes*...isn't that what it's all about?
QuoteI don't know what you mean by I how smart he is. I've never bought this Spock-Obama, constitutional scholar line.
He was a Constitutional Law scholar. Professionally.
I think you are seriously overestimating how sensible criticism of Obama is over here. I've seen/heard him called stupid many times, and seen his academic credentials questioned.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 30, 2012, 08:18:11 PM
QuoteI don't know what you mean by I how smart he is. I've never bought this Spock-Obama, constitutional scholar line.
He was a Constitutional Law scholar. Professionally.
I think you are seriously overestimating how sensible criticism of Obama is over here. I've seen/heard him called stupid many times, and seen his academic credentials questioned.
There are lots of people who have impressive acedemic credentials who really aren't all that smart.
Quote from: dps on May 30, 2012, 08:23:18 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 30, 2012, 08:18:11 PM
QuoteI don't know what you mean by I how smart he is. I've never bought this Spock-Obama, constitutional scholar line.
He was a Constitutional Law scholar. Professionally.
I think you are seriously overestimating how sensible criticism of Obama is over here. I've seen/heard him called stupid many times, and seen his academic credentials questioned.
There are lots of people who have impressive acedemic credentials who really aren't all that smart.
That's definitely true, at least in the minds of people lacking academic credentials.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 07:48:51 PM
In the end...*flicks ashes*...isn't that what it's all about?
:lol: It is genius.
Wait, does it matter if Obama is born in Kenya? Wasn't his mother a citizen?
I think we can all agree that Obama is an unscrupulous asshole, but he's no fool.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 08:34:11 PM
Wait, does it matter if Obama is born in Kenya? Wasn't his mother a citizen?
It doesn't matter, and she was. But those are mere facts, and the issue has never been about facts.
QuoteI think we can all agree that Obama is an unscrupulous asshole, but he's no fool.
I think he's just misguided and inexperienced. I've seen no evidence that he is an asshole or a fool.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2012, 08:35:35 PM
I think he's just misguided and inexperienced. I've seen no evidence that he is an asshole or a fool.
I dunno. That whole 'born in Kenya' when it suited him to be so really rubs me the wrong way. It's just makes me thing of Dorsey4Heismann. Plus, he's a politician, and from Chicago. You don't come out of there and rise to the top of the American political scene without being hateful and cruel.
Abraham Lincoln did.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2012, 08:35:35 PM
I think he's just misguided and inexperienced. I've seen no evidence that he is an asshole or a fool.
I dunno. That whole 'born in Kenya' when it suited him to be so really rubs me the wrong way. It's just makes me thing of Dorsey4Heismann. Plus, he's a politician, and from Chicago. You don't come out of there and rise to the top of the American political scene without being hateful and cruel.
It was confirmed to be a fact-checking error, and that Obama wasn't aware of it.
Quote from: Jaron on May 30, 2012, 08:45:58 PM
Abraham Lincoln did.
Wasn't he more rural?
Besides, he's tainted by some shitty movie.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 30, 2012, 08:45:58 PM
Abraham Lincoln did.
Wasn't he more rural?
Besides, he's tainted by some shitty movie.
The Young Mr. Lincoln was an excellent movie. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 08:54:50 PM
It was confirmed to be a fact-checking error, and that Obama wasn't aware of it.
Don't you think an agency like that would let their clients take a look at their bio before they are published? Not a huge deal to me either way, but I'd have to think that someone as image-conscious as Obama would have seen that at some point.
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish.
Yeah? Examples?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 31, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish.
Yeah? Examples?
Perhaps he will demonstrate by correcting himself and admitting he never changes his mind. I think the universe would blow up then. :D
Quote from: Zoupa on May 31, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish.
Yeah? Examples?
:face: CALL OUT
Quote from: Queequeg on May 30, 2012, 08:18:11 PM
He was a Constitutional Law scholar. Professionally.
True. And I think he's smart, but I've never thought he was some sort of genius or that his smarts were a big reason to vote for him.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 31, 2012, 02:15:00 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 31, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish.
Yeah? Examples?
:face: CALL OUT
I searched "sorry", "wrong" and "apologize". These were the only two that could be slightly characterized as somewhat apologetic. Most of the time, I've found that he uses "sorry" in a "I'm sorry that you are a dumb ass." :D
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,2682.msg134775/topicseen.html#msg134775
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,2687.msg136067/topicseen.html#msg136067
Quote from: Zoupa on May 31, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
That is rather disappointing. I am perfectly capable of recognizing that I am not always right, and have changed my mind on many occasions on Languish.
Yeah? Examples?
Went back and forth on who to vote for last time.
Recently just stated that I was giving up on every single Republican candidate in the race.
Those are two easy examples. If you want more, feel free to exercise the search button.
I will do the same, as soon as you, DG, Seedy, and say...Jacob all provide examples as well of changing your minds on some position on Languish.
They are examples of your own internal dialogue, not of changing your mind in response to an argument made by someone else.
Quote from: Gups on May 31, 2012, 08:57:01 AM
They are examples of your own internal dialogue, not of changing your mind in response to an argument made by someone else.
Oh? You know why I change my mind, and what influences it better than I?
Again, I will be happy to do the work to search for some actual threads as long as others are willing to do the same. If the ability to change one mind is such an indicator of intellectual flexibility, then I am sure those accusing me of lacking the same will have examples of them doing so as well.
*I* know I've reversed my position on occasion, and said so - if Zoupa, of all people, doesn't believe me, I can probably live with that.
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 08:39:12 AMI will do the same, as soon as you, DG, Seedy, and say...Jacob all provide examples as well of changing your minds on some position on Languish.
:lol:
I'm honoured to be included in your list. Maybe you should include Vinraith as well?
Berkut definitely changed his mind on McCain, who had been his hero at one time.
I've seen him change his mind on other issues as more details develop, though unfortunately he usually changes it in the wrong direction :(
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 31, 2012, 08:57:01 AM
They are examples of your own internal dialogue, not of changing your mind in response to an argument made by someone else.
Oh? You know why I change my mind, and what influences it better than I?
You are right. I made the silly assumption that you would decide who to vote for on a muliplicity of factors and not solely by reading posts on Languish. My bad.
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 08:39:12 AMI will do the same, as soon as you, DG, Seedy, and say...Jacob all provide examples as well of changing your minds on some position on Languish.
:lol:
I'm honoured to be included in your list. Maybe you should include Vinraith as well?
I actually included you because I think you are an example of someone who everyone respects on both sides of the political divide...yet, I can't recall you specifically saying "You're right, I am changing my mind on this issue!" Which doesn't mean you don't change your mind, and that you are not flexible - just that it would be hard to come up with some kind of specific example on demand.
Quote from: Gups on May 31, 2012, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 31, 2012, 08:57:01 AM
They are examples of your own internal dialogue, not of changing your mind in response to an argument made by someone else.
Oh? You know why I change my mind, and what influences it better than I?
You are right. I made the silly assumption that you would decide who to vote for on a muliplicity of factors and not solely by reading posts on Languish. My bad.
It is not a binary issue. Of course I make decisions like that based on different factors. That will always be true though, on any issue. If someone wants an example of where I've changed my mind based on nothing but what I hear on Languish, I don't think I can come up with one, for that exact reason. Too much goes into any kind of choices like that. Languish is one of many inputs.
But the claim made was that I *never* change my mind, and am apparently somehow unusual in that respect compared to others on Languish who engage in these discussions. So my examples of me changing my mind are quite valid, even if they involve inputs from outside Languish.
I don't thihnk anyone claims you are an idealogue or party hack unable to come to independent views.
The question is whether, once you are in an argument, you are prepared to be swayed by someone arguing against you. My impression is that you are not, but that impression may well be outdated, since I don't really follow or get involved in these kind if disputes any more.
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:41:22 AMI actually included you because I think you are an example of someone who everyone respects on both sides of the political divide...yet, I can't recall you specifically saying "You're right, I am changing my mind on this issue!" Which doesn't mean you don't change your mind, and that you are not flexible - just that it would be hard to come up with some kind of specific example on demand.
Alright, fair enough... except maybe the one about people respecting me. This is languish, after all.
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:41:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
:lol:
I'm honoured to be included in your list. Maybe you should include Vinraith as well?
I actually included you because I think you are an example of someone who everyone respects on both sides of the political divide...
Sorry, but I simply can't respect somebody who has better hair than I do. And has banged more Asian chicks.
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:41:22 AMI actually included you because I think you are an example of someone who everyone respects on both sides of the political divide...yet, I can't recall you specifically saying "You're right, I am changing my mind on this issue!" Which doesn't mean you don't change your mind, and that you are not flexible - just that it would be hard to come up with some kind of specific example on demand.
Alright, fair enough... except maybe the one about people respecting me. This is languish, after all.
I will always respect you, Jake, as long as you keep saying nice things about me. :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 05:56:32 AM
True. And I think he's smart, but I've never thought he was some sort of genius or that his smarts were a big reason to vote for him.
Scholar? He taught a class.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:44:26 AM
Scholar? He taught a class.
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:44:26 AM
Scholar? He taught a class.
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
That's a good question. I can't think of anything written by Obama that was published. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2012, 10:49:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:44:26 AM
Scholar? He taught a class.
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
That's a good question. I can't think of anything written by Obama that was published. :hmm:
Only thing I can think of is that blurb about being born in Kenya...
I'm published. :smarty:
Don't know if nuclear physics counts when it comes to smarts though. :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
The only folks required to publish are tenure trackers.
Quote from: Gups on May 31, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
I don't thihnk anyone claims you are an idealogue or party hack unable to come to independent views.
The question is whether, once you are in an argument, you are prepared to be swayed by someone arguing against you. My impression is that you are not, but that impression may well be outdated, since I don't really follow or get involved in these kind if disputes any more.
Pretty much.
It doesn't really matter though. Keep doing you, Berk. Do take your BP meds when you go a 20 paragraph quoting frenzy though.
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2012, 10:49:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:44:26 AM
Scholar? He taught a class.
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
That's a good question. I can't think of anything written by Obama that was published. :hmm:
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:56:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
The only folks required to publish are tenure trackers.
Oh okay. Over here, at least in my uni, you needed to be published and to have a book contract before you were given an academic job. In that case I'm back at my initial position on Obama as constitutional scholar.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:56:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Surely he was published if he was in an academic role?
The only folks required to publish are tenure trackers.
Oh okay. Over here, at least in my uni, you needed to be published and to have a book contract before you were given an academic job. In that case I'm back at my initial position on Obama as constitutional scholar.
He was El Presidente of the Harvard Law Review, you know. Not exactly brochure work.
Every law school has a law review and every law review has an editor. Do we call them all Legal Scholars(tm)?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 12:34:53 PM
Every law school has a law review and every law review has an editor. Do we call them all Legal Scholars(tm)?
Harvard Law Review is not Smokey Mountain Trucking School Law Review. It is an internationally-recognized publication, and the standard for legal reviews.
That's like saying the editor-in-chief of the
New York Times is up there with the
Gaithersburg Gazette.
Nice try, hater.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 12:40:23 PM
Harvard Law Review is not Smokey Mountain Trucking School Law Review. It is an internationally-recognized publication, and the standard for legal reviews.
That's like saying the editor-in-chief of the New York Times is up there with the Gaithersburg Gazette.
Nice try, hater.
OK, so we reserve Legal Scholar for the editors of IV law reviews?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 12:40:23 PM
Harvard Law Review is not Smokey Mountain Trucking School Law Review. It is an internationally-recognized publication, and the standard for legal reviews.
That's like saying the editor-in-chief of the New York Times is up there with the Gaithersburg Gazette.
Nice try, hater.
OK, so we reserve Legal Scholar for the editors of IV law reviews?
Obama has a greater amount of legal accomplishments than Uncle Clarence ever did. Or does.
Yeah, I went there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 12:48:03 PM
Obama has a greater amount of legal accomplishments than Uncle Clarence ever did. Or does.
Yeah, I went there.
You go there almost daily.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 12:48:03 PM
Obama has a greater amount of legal accomplishments than Uncle Clarence ever did. Or does.
Yeah, I went there.
Big deal. Legal accomplishments aren't real accomplishments.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 12:48:03 PM
Obama has a greater amount of legal accomplishments than Uncle Clarence ever did. Or does.
Yeah, I went there.
Are you referring to that bus line in South Side Chicago he petitioned for, or something else?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Are you referring to that bus line in South Side Chicago he petitioned for, or something else?
Yeah how many buslines did Clarence Thomas put in eh?
Just gonna leave this here:
QuoteSince 2009, [Michael] Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the "racialization" of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial cast as Obama has staked out positions on them. Tesler has used polling experiments to identify a series of issues that have become enmeshed in complicated racial attitudes by dint of Obama's association with them: health care reform, taxes, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Even Bo Obama fell into this matrix; racists looked less favorably on a picture of the president's dog when they learned the identity of his owner. That part, too, surprised Tesler. "I thought people would have stronger views about dogs than politics," he said.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/06/racicalization_michael_tesler_s_theory_that_all_political_positions_come_down_to_racial_bias_.single.html
Careful Ulmont, you are gonna call the wrath of Berkut down upon you.
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 03:14:55 PM
Careful Ulmont, you are gonna call the wrath of Berkut down upon you.
Actually, I can see Berkut's post now (if he responds). "Yeah, of course people who don't like Blacks are going to be anti-Obama.". If he says that, he does have a point. To really clinch it they need to use other black politicians as well as Obama. Still it is interesting.
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 03:14:55 PM
Careful Ulmont, you are gonna call the wrath of Berkut down upon you.
I don't see why, the cited text is stating the obvious.
Do you think a black racist would tend to look more or less positively on Wubya's dog once they found out the ownership.
I don't know, why don't we ask garbon.
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 03:14:55 PM
Careful Ulmont, you are gonna call the wrath of Berkut down upon you.
I don't see why. Berkut has never argued that racism doesn't exist. A study that shows that it exists is scarcely likely to come as news to him.
Even if it is from Slate.
Hell, it would be nice to see some actual *evidence*.
But yeah - racist look less favorably on issues supported by the black president? Is that really news?
Who would have thought that your typical racist would be engaging in irrational thinking like that!
Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2012, 10:07:32 PM
Hell, it would be nice to see some actual *evidence*.
But yeah - racist look less favorably on issues supported by the black president? Is that really news?
Who would have thought that your typical racist would be engaging in irrational thinking like that!
Apparently not Tesler.
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2012, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
While clingers is a gaffe for Obama but I don't think would've caused Bush real problems.
Because he never would have said it? ;)
It would be the third dumbest thing he said that day.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 02:09:54 PM
There's a birther ad?
An Ad? They've got a whole infomercial. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/as_seen_on_tv_birthermercial_asks_where_was_obama.php
Wait, there was actually a question about his citizenship at one point? I thought it was always about the natural "born" thing.
Quote from: sbr on June 02, 2012, 11:38:20 AM
Wait, there was actually a question about his citizenship at one point? I thought it was always about the natural "born" thing.
There are only two kinds of citizens: natural and naturalized. Since Obama was never naturalized, he is either a natural citizen or not a citizen at all.
Since his mother was a citizen, though, I don't see how the latter could be true.