Is it really necessary to portray the election of the opposing candidate as the end of humanity?

[InterestedObserver]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I'd like to gently suggest that you at least consider a couple of challenges to things you obviously believe are absolute truth:

1. That tax cuts for the rich and "giant" (as opposed to merely pretty honkin' big) corporations are necessarily, automatically, a bad thing.

2. That the economic woes of the last few years were directly, proximally, and primarily caused by the economic policies of the GWB administration.

Now, you (and most others reading this) are probably snorting, "Of course they are! Of course they were!" However, these are, in fact, not easily answered questions--unless you resort to ideology to answer them, or, more precisely, to avoid answering them.

(I am wondering, by the way, why GWB takes a full hit for the economy in 2008, and well beyond according to the Democrats, but Obama is not the least bit to blame for the current economic non-recovery. But I digress.)

And yes, we should have had universal health care long ago, and yes, the Republicans are probably to "blame" for that. But they had their reasons for opposing it--and it's too much of a leap from disagreeing with those reasons (as I do, and I'm sure you do) to saying that the Republicans are evil, selfish assholes.

The point I'm trying to get across is that we should think less viscerally and more cerebrally about who we choose for our leaders and what we want our (ostensible) representatives to do for us.

I am not ASSUMING or BELIEVING anything, Greenslime. I am making an informed, educated statement based on FACTS and HISTORY.

Give me a fucking BREAK...your ideology has FAILED miserably, provably, and repeatably. Give it UP already. All the pseudo-babble in the world won't salvage that record.


Look, we recently entered the WORST economic downturn/crisis since the Great Depression, during and immediately on the heels of 8 YEARS of near to TOTAL REPUBLICAN control ( and don't give me that shit about the Democrats in control of Congress for the last few years caused it...Bush broke RECORDS with his vetos of everything they proposed...you guys wanted COMPLETE control...you got it, baby...it's alll on YOU!)


In FACT, the Great Depression (which we still measure our bad times by) came during and on the heels of 12 years of REPUBLICAN control (characterized by many of the EXACT same policies as the GOP of today; union-busting, slashing government spending, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, supply-side economics and laissaz-faire governing.)

Like then, A DEMOCRAT had to come in (elected and RE-elected by record-setting popular votes) and institute STIMULUS and landmark SOCIAL programs and RE-regulate the banks and other interstate commerce.


Those who do not LEARN from history are doomed to REPEAT it. Dumbass.


I'm a 20 year Independent/Unaffiliated voter....I do not reach these conclusions by partisan bias but by the facts as I have examined them lo these many years.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by adaher

You are of course free to discount anything anyone says, whether they provide a cite or not, just as you are free to believe anything anyone says, whether or not they provide a cite. And the rest of us are free to make our own judgements as well.

So lack of fact is just as credible to you as fact? On what basis do you exercise your beliefs or your discounting of statements, then?

If you're telling us that a grounding in reality simply doesn't really matter, then what the fuck does? Wow.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by not what you'd expect

Floppy eared one is okay though, right?

When you fail to provide cites to back up your claims, I feel free to discount everything you say.

Do you not know how to link?

Yeah, it's OK.

I feel free to discount anything and everything you say even if it's "backed up" by a thousand "cites."

Don't be a third grader and say that because someone doesn't do something you demand they do, they don't know how to do it.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by adaher

The issue in question was whether Obama had apologized for America. We all agree on what he said, a cite wouldn't contribute anything to that. We disagreed on the interpretation of those remarks.

Of course. That's why the citepanzees' screeching is so phony. They remember those series of speeches just well as we do. As you say, it's a matter of interpretation--and the citepanzees are well aware of that, and certainly they wouldn't change their position if I (or you, or anybody) wasted our time and posted a hundred "cites"--they'd just screech and throw more feces.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by adaher

You are of course free to discount anything anyone says, whether they provide a cite or not, just as you are free to believe anything anyone says, whether or not they provide a cite. And the rest of us are free to make our own judgements as well.

Unless you aren't a liberal, apparently.

The utter hypocrisy of screeching for a CITE as a means of expressing disagreement but not providing CITES for everything YOU say is lost on these people.

I think I've spent too much time with the chimpanzees. The screeching and chaos are kind of interesting but also wearying after a while.

Ironically, the tone of the rhetoric/screeching/throwing feces on this thread has provided me with a definitive answer to what was intended to be a rhetorical question: Yes, it is necessary. We apparently can't converse civilly.

Moderator: Suggest closing this thread as the original topic has disappeared into the muck.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by InterestedObserver

Give me a fucking BREAK...your ideology has FAILED miserably, provably, and repeatably. Give it UP already. All the pseudo-babble in the world won't salvage that record.


Those who do not LEARN from history are doomed to REPEAT it. Dumbass.


I'm a 20 year Independent/Unaffiliated voter....I do not reach these conclusions by partisan bias but by the facts as I have examined them lo these many years.

I don't have an ideology--dumbass You make the silly assumption that I'm a Republican. I'm not. Dumbass.

I'll give you a fucking break anytime you want it. Dumbass How about giving me one? Not that I expect it from you--that would be civil. Dumbass.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I don't have an ideology--dumbass You make the silly assumption that I'm a Republican. I'm not. Dumbass.

I'll give you a fucking break anytime you want it. Dumbass How about giving me one? Not that I expect it from you--that would be civil. Dumbass.

I am giving you a warning for personal insults. Given that this is your second infraction during your brief tenure, the staff will be discussing your posting privileges.

twickster, Elections moderator

[twickster]

Originally Posted by InterestedObserver

Those who do not LEARN from history are doomed to REPEAT it. Dumbass.

I'm giving you a warning for personal insults. Adding a smiley doesn't get you off the hook on this -- and you've definitely been here long enough to know better.

twickster, Elections moderator

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

. . . the citepanzees' screeching . . .
. . . the citepanzees . . . they'd just screech and throw more feces.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I think I've spent too much time with the chimpanzees. The screeching and chaos are kind of interesting but also wearying after a while.

I am not going to pile another Warning on top of the one you just received, but this is a pretty clear bit of evidence that you are at least as responsible as your opponents for the following:

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

. . . the original topic has disappeared into the muck.

[ /Moderating ]

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Unless you aren't a liberal, apparently.

The utter hypocrisy of screeching for a CITE as a means of expressing disagreement but not providing CITES for everything YOU say is lost on these people.

You do realize you are just as allowed to ask for a cite as they are, right? Don't act like you're being forced to fight with a hand tied behind your back.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

You do realize you are just as allowed to ask for a cite as they are, right? Don't act like you're being forced to fight with a hand tied behind your back.

Yes, and in case it wasn't clear the underlying claim is if you make an assertion on a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance, you should be able to back it up. Otherwise, it's just hot air.

If you can't back it up, there are tricks you can use like softening your claim or tacking on "IMHO".

For example:

"Monkeys fly out of my posterior."

"Cite?"

"Oh sorry, IMHO monkeys fly out of my posterior."

"Oh well then: carry on."

Originally Posted by adaher

As for me providing that cite, it really shouldn't have been necessary. Is there anyone here unaware of the gist of Obama's speeches, especially the ones most cited as apologies? And did my cite really clarify anything? Greenslime remembered what he remembered, I remembered the same thing, and I think you remembered the same thing, you just took away something different from it than we did.

Um actually I had no idea what was being referenced. No worries, but I don't get my news from the TV. I had read those speeches and news reports of the same, but "Apology" didn't really cross my mind. So yeah it did clarify a lot.

Furthermore, once we have ~10 examples we can assess them. It is a fact that the words "Apologize", "Sorry" or even "Regret" appeared nowhere. If we were to drill down further, I'd request that proponents of this view give the Obama quote that best strengthens their position. Then we could discuss it. What I'm seeing here is part evasion, part post-Modernism. To wit, if somebody feels something, it contains an emotional truth. While this view is popular in certain circles, I find it bunk.

[adaher]

When it comes to language, what people get from what is said is entirely legitimate. Do you believe in 'dog whistle' language in politics?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by adaher

When it comes to language, what people get from what is said is entirely legitimate. Do you believe in 'dog whistle' language in politics?

Of course. In that case the speaker intends to send a coded message to one group and a banality to the wider public. Pointing out the messaging is entirely legitimate.

It's quite another thing to hallucinate an apology out of speech that explores cultural misunderstandings. Words have meaning. Facts matter. You don't just get to make shit up.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

How about this: each candidate acknowledges that the other is a highly competent, successful individual, and is well-grounded morally and ethically. That while the candidates' political philosophies may differ, each has the best interests of his country, and the world, at heart and truly desires to make America, and the world, better places and to solve the problems that beset them.

Then we could move on to discussions of the specific policies each candidate would implement if elected, without having to resort to character assassination.

Sorry, what was I thinking????

Right up until the spring of 2003 I thought the only real important thing about the presidential election was the effect it would have on the composition of the Supreme Court. Then we invaded Iraq and I thought to myself "OOPS! I shoulda been paying more attention to the fucking nutjobs that have taken over the Republican party"

Right now there are 4 justices in their 70's, two liberal and two conservative.

I don't think poorly of Romney. I think he's wrong on a lot of things but I dont think that a congress full of Mitt Romneys would have been willing to harm the country in an effort to harm Obama's presidency.

But, I do think that the current Republican party has a lot of people who are Republicans first and Americans second. They rationalize it by telling themselves that any temporary harm they may inflict on America in their attempts to harm the Obama presidency is far outweighed by the good they would be able to do if only they got power... again.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

"Oh sorry, IMHO monkeys fly out of my posterior."

"Oh well then: carry on."

Not even then. That's a statement of fact, not opinion.

What I'm seeing here is part evasion, part post-Modernism. To wit, if somebody feels something, it contains an emotional truth. While this view is popular in certain circles, I find it bunk.

It's called "truthiness".

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Of course. In that case the speaker intends to send a coded message to one group and a banality to the wider public. Pointing out the messaging is entirely legitimate.

It's quite another thing to hallucinate an apology out of speech that explores cultural misunderstandings. Words have meaning. Facts matter. You don't just get to make shit up.

Conservatives weren't the only ones to hear an apology. When it became politically damaging, then there was disagreement over what he meant. I didn't see any disagreement before conservatives made hay out of it.

I saw the same thing with the "you didn't build that". First it was an amazing truth that he spoke about the importance of collective action, and when that proved to be too damaging it was just a banal observation of little importance.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by adaher

Conservatives weren't the only ones to hear an apology. When it became politically damaging, then there was disagreement over what he meant. I didn't see any disagreement before conservatives made hay out of it.

Politically damaging? Hardly. Only to the extent that right wing hallucinations are politically damaging.

I saw the same thing with the "you didn't build that". First it was an amazing truth that he spoke about the importance of collective action, and when that proved to be too damaging it was just a banal observation of little importance.

Well, actually he was riffing off of Elizabeth Warren. And the point is we all owe an impossible to repay debt to our forefathers, those who lay the bricks to create the schools we learned in, those who built the roads, those who burnt midnight oil to construct the incredible edifice of knowledge called science.

And modern conservatives think it was all done by pampered CEOs and financiers. Lame.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by adaher

I saw the same thing with the "you didn't build that". First it was an amazing truth that he spoke about the importance of collective action, and when that proved to be too damaging it was just a banal observation of little importance.

Those flip flopped interpretations were coming from you. You were the one flinging all manner of stuff as you tried to find something that would stick. It's a problem you face because you are not arguing from a coherent position, but rather in an attempt to score political points for Team Romney. This is especially challenging because Team Romney has no integrity themselves, so you often have to dance through odd musical time changes.

[Leaper]

I read somewhere that there's a book claiming that Obama really wants to win for two reasons: the Supreme Court, and the fear that Romney and conservative economic policies will take credit for any economic turnaround that happens.

I can see why Obama's supporters would definitely think both would be, at the least, incredibly damaging.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Leaper

I read somewhere that there's a book claiming that Obama really wants to win for two reasons: the Supreme Court, and the fear that Romney and conservative economic policies will take credit for any economic turnaround that happens.

I can see why Obama's supporters would definitely think both would be, at the least, incredibly damaging.

If conservative economic policies could remotely lead to a hastened recovery, I wouldn't care half as much about this election.

[Leaper]

Yes, I should clarify: the implication was that Obama believed that a recovery would inevitably happen, and that Romney and conservatives would take credit for it when they did nothing to help it along, and thus add legitimacy to policies that he thinks are wrongheaded.

Again, this is all in some book (IIRC), and thus should be taken with a grain of salt, but extended beyond claims of what the President thinks to his supporters in general, I think it's a good set of reasoning to understand their mindset.