Br'er Barack to plum git Br'er FOX

[Death_of_Rats]

@Giles

There’s always a crazy fringe on every side of politics. The problem is that the craziness has infected the mainstream of the Republican Party in the last 11 months.

It has been there A LOT longer then that. It has only been the last 11 months that the tide has turned against the crazies and brought there lunacy to the forefront.

[Sampiro]

@omgzebras

We are and always have been, literally, exactly that. It’s not a negative quality to admit the truth. Even if it scares you.

psss… don’t tell 'em humans are animals or that Earth is one of billions of planets or that lightening isn’t really God taking our pictures…

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Death_of_Rats

It has been there A LOT longer then that. It has only been the last 11 months that the tide has turned against the crazies and brought there lunacy to the forefront.

Confirmation bias? Maybe. But it seems to me that basic grammar muffs like this always lurk like trolls under bridges solely to thwart my every attempt to view right-wingers as intelligent people with different views from my own. No matter how intelligent you may be, demonstrable ignorance of your own mother tongue makes you as credible as a Ferrari with delaminated paint.

[elelle]

@Zsofia

Uncle Remus isn’t Gullah. If it were Gullah, it would be unintelligible.

Uncle Remus had some good Gullah roots, though from this site

Gullah Folktales is difficult to read, even compared to the Uncle Remus tales; however, Jones does include a convenient glossary at the end. Here for example is the first paragraph of the Gullah version of the Tar-Baby story:
Buh Wolf and Buh Rabbit, dem bin lib nabur. De dry drout come. Ebry ting stew up. Water scace. Buh Wolf dig one spring fuh him fuh git water. Buh Rabbit, him too lazy an too scheemy fuh wuk fuh isself. Eh pen pon lib off tarruh people. Ebry day, wen Buh Wolf yent duh watch um, eh slip to Buh Wolf spring, and he full him calabash long water an cah um to eh house fuh cook long and fuh drink. Buh Wolf see Buh Rabbit track, but eh couldnt ketch um duh tief de water.

To some extent I think it is easier to understand if read aloud, particularly since the material did come from oral storytelling tradition. The tales include stories of trickery and morals tales with animal protagonists (a rare few with elements of European folktales), and some humorous tales of the interaction between slaves and masters.

This was from early 19th century folklore, but I think we can get the gist of it now. I’m glad to hear the Gullah accent, good to hear history echoing beyond accepted means.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I think it’s a necessary strategy since no one else is doing it. I think they should be even more aggressive, if anything.

[waterj2]

@Sampiro

There are many different kinds of armbands. Elaborate please.

Don’t you know, wanting the Democrats to grow a pair is exactly the same thing as the Holocaust.

[Marley23]

@waterj2

Don’t you know, wanting the Democrats to grow a pair is exactly the same thing as the Holocaust.

You know who ELSE had a pair?
Oh wait- he didn’t.

[Sampiro]

@waterj2

Don’t you know, wanting the Democrats to grow a pair is exactly the same thing as the Holocaust.

Shhhhh!!! Lord Obama has given strict orders that mums the word on… ahem… Project 88.

[Marlitharn]

On the one hand, I think it might be better for the WH to stick with a DNFTT policy.

On the other hand, watching Beckie and Rushie get called on their bullshit until they go into a full-blown meltdown like we used to have in the Pit in the good old days might be kind of entertaining.

But I think Obama may be putting too much faith in the idealistic belief that reasoned discourse will win out over the ravings of moronic loons.

I’m…conflicted.

[leander]

@Marley23

[Modding]This is probably bound for Great Debates.[/Modding]
This isn’t really new, since the White House was going after Rush Limbaugh from day one, for example. I don’t like the strategy. I think it’s inherently ridiculous for the president and his spokespeople, who are supposed have an agenda to implement and things to do, to be arguing with pundits who get paid to run their mouths and are not beholden to anybody except their advertisers. But that view may just be old fashioned. It’s media decentralization at work, the same way celebrities have their own twitter accounts rather than waiting around for reporters to interview them, and some sports teams have their own networks.

I don’t see this helping the Obama administration, but it’s true that they didn’t have a clear message on the health care issue, and the “death panel” and “government run health care” hysteria were more comprehensible. That hurt them a lot. And their critiques of the news media are not wrong. You can get the press to cover any ridiculous issue or claim as long as you can convince somebody that there’s a controversy - which is not difficult to do - and coverage of “controversies” is self-perpetuating. And debunking birthers doesn’t matter, since they still benefit from the free coverage.

The downside of this proposal is that it lowers the White House, gradually, to being one voice among many in a crowded and noisy media argument. Maybe that is going to happen inevitably anyway, but they’re giving up something in prestige and I don’t think they’ll gain very much from engaging their critics on the critics’ turf.

I tend to agree with you, but…

There are so many really stupid people who believe all the nonsense that the extreme right wingers are spewing these days. It is important to counter that noise with something. It would be better if the dreaded MSM would do that job, but you can’t really blame the WH for wanting to fight ignorance!

[Marley23]

@leander

There are so many really stupid people who believe all the nonsense that the extreme right wingers are spewing these days. It is important to counter that noise with something. It would be better if the dreaded MSM would do that job, but you can’t really blame the WH for wanting to fight ignorance!

I definitely don’t blame them and they do need to spread their own message. But I am not sure they can win an argument with people who are not elected and are held to no standards of truth or accuracy. Countering them is one thing and going after them is another.

But they’re going after them, that’s for sure. Did you see the statement the Democrats made in response to Republican criticism of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win?

[Inigo_Montoya]

No. Link? I saw Huckabee’s though. Even he knows his party is infested with nutjobs.

[silenus]

Yeah, but even Huckabee is off-base. Obama doesn’t have to justify anything. It’s not like the WH put his name up for consideration. Blame the Norwegians, not the liberals.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yeah, the Huckabee blog is disingenuous. He’s saying that instead of bitching about Obama getting the prize, conservatives should (passive-aggressively) “…allow those on the left to explain what he did in his first two weeks as President that merited such recognition.”

The left didn’t give him the prize, why should they have to explain anything?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yeah, the Huckabee blog is disingenuous. He’s saying that instead of bitching about Obama getting the prize, conservatives should (passive-aggressively) “…allow those on the left to explain what he did in his first two weeks as President that merited such recognition.”

The left didn’t give him the prize, why should they have to explain anything?

Well, if he’s accepting it, then Huckabee kinda sorta has a point. I mean, what would you do upon getting offered a Nobel Prize? I’m assuming you’ve never patented a brilliant invention or negotiatied a peace treaty or whatever; would it be unreasonable for people to ask you for a quick explanation of what you’ve done to merit it if you decided to accept?