Remember the 80’s (and the 90’s, of course), when the terrorism we were afraid of was represented on t.v. primarily by that one douchebag from the “Michigan Militia”? Perhaps we’re heading for those days again, but I don’t think so, and I don’t think that it’s quite comparable to look to Iraq as a model for an insurgency in the US. Perhaps if someone toppled our central government, we could have a little Red Dawn right-wing fantasy moment, but absent that, what is the populace here supposed to rally around? As Dio said, fear of trigger locks? A fear of black helicopters from the UN?
Some people in the US are crazy right wingers. Most aren’t, and most don’t want to hole up in a fortified compound in the middle of nowhere.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Perhaps you’re right, but Obama’s nomination, at least is (barring something truly catastrophic) already a virtual fait accompli. It’s silly to say that he’s “toast” if he loses in PA. He has never been expected to win PA.
[/QUOTE]
No, and yes.
You’re absolutely correct to say it’s silly to consider him “toast” if he fails to win in Pennsylvania; the polls always show him losing that state. (Of course, there’s a difference between losing 55-45 and losing it 75-25).
But it’s NOT correct to say his nomination is a virtual certainty. Neither candidate has enough votes without the superdelegates, and it’s far from certain what they will do – ESPECIALLY if they see margins closer to 75-25 than 55-45.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
I bet. I am thinking we need to send the survivalists and pre-insurgents right here in the USA to Iraq. They’d clearly know how to deal with the insurgency there better than our professional soldiers can.
[/QUOTE]
The question isn’t whether they could suppress an insurgency; it’s whether they could mount one. Two entirely different propositions, which you knew, but you had come up with what you thought was a dreadfully clever reply so you posted anyway.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
The question isn’t whether they could suppress an insurgency; it’s whether they could mount one. Two entirely different propositions, which you knew, but you had come up with what you thought was a dreadfully clever reply so you posted anyway.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=control-z]
Actually that speech he made a month or so ago about racial issues almost made me an Obama supporter. It was very honest and insightful. But these last comments, combined with his preacher and dour-looking wife, would make me pretty worried about electing the guy.
[/QUOTE]
And there’s the epitaph for Democracy: people decided how to vote based on how the candidate’s wife looked.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
The question isn’t whether they could suppress an insurgency; it’s whether they could mount one. Two entirely different propositions, which you knew, but you had come up with what you thought was a dreadfully clever reply so you posted anyway.
[/QUOTE]
It is dreadfully clever, as it would dispose of two sets of undesirables simultaneously. The beauty is, we wouldn’t even have to win in Iraq to be successful. A modest proposal, if you will.
[QUOTE=cricetus]
And there’s the epitaph for Democracy: people decided how to vote based on how the candidate’s wife looked.
[/QUOTE]
Heh, I’m sure it’s always been that way.
I don’t just mean her appearance. You can often judge people by the company they keep. This is not a happy looking woman. Maybe I’m wrong, just something I’m keeping an eye on.
You’re absolutely correct to say it’s silly to consider him “toast” if he fails to win in Pennsylvania; the polls always show him losing that state. (Of course, there’s a difference between losing 55-45 and losing it 75-25).
But it’s NOT correct to say his nomination is a virtual certainty. Neither candidate has enough votes without the superdelegates, and it’s far from certain what they will do – ESPECIALLY if they see margins closer to 75-25 than 55-45.
[/QUOTE]
There is zero chance that the supers will contravene the majority will of the voters, so I think this argument, while technicaly true, is without any practical merit.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There is zero chance that the supers will contravene the majority will of the voters, so I think this argument, while technicaly true, is without any practical merit.
[/QUOTE]
I think Obama is the odds on favorite to win the nomination, but I’d only estimate those odds at something like 60/40. Keep in mind that it’s quite possible that there will be credible claims for different count totals for the popular vote given the mess in FL and MI.
[QUOTE=control-z]
I don’t just mean her appearance. You can often judge people by the company they keep. This is not a happy looking woman. Maybe I’m wrong, just something I’m keeping an eye on.
[/QUOTE]
That’s just as likely to mean she’s afraid of her husband winning the presidency as afraid of him losing it. Maybe it’s just starting to sink in what being FLOTUS entails, especially for the first black woman in the position ever.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Obama said the following at a fundraiser last week and righties are up in arms about it.
Every word of this is true, yet the refrain over the weekend now is that Obama is an “elitist,” for stating the bleeding obvious. Now, it might end up being a political mistake for Obama to have been a little too blunt, but he wasn’t wrong, and the objections to his statements aren’t founded in any factual rebuttals but in resentment (or at least upon the hope of creating resentment) of Obama (the candidate with the least personal wealth of the three and the most humble background), is an “elitist.” “Elitist,” of course, is code for “uppity.” The bitching about Obama’s truthful insights into small town bitterness (and the attendant symptoms of religionism, xenophobia and the pathetic machismo of gun culture) is really just anger at the thought that an uppity, Harvard educated black man is looking down his nose at blue collar whites.
Actually, I’m not even sure how many blue collar, small town types really feel that way, but the pundits on the political right are certainly trying to create that kind of emotional response.
Obama didn’t say anything that wasn’t true. I guess the truth just hurts. It might cost him votes, but that will only prove that he was right.
[/QUOTE]
No.
I’ve suspected for a long time that you’ve never lived in a small town, Dio. Now I wonder if you’ve ever even seen one. The issue here isn’t whether there are depressed people who have lost their jobs, become bitter, and channeled their energy into religion or guns (or stamp collecting, or knitting…). Of course there are. The issue isn’t whether losing one’s job to a foreign company can cause “anti-trade sentiment.” I’ll certainly grant him that one.
It’s his generalizations (and yours) that are false.
The issues are that
(a) People in big cities who lose their jobs react in the same way as people in small towns who lose their jobs. A small-town miner losing his job because the mine closes is in exactly the same straights as a big-city auto-worker losing his job because the car factory closes–and they’ll probably react the same way. The fallacious presentation of the reaction as a “small town” syndrome is why people consider it patronizing, and that’s why the generalization is false.
(b) There’s an implication there that small-town folks who lose their jobs just sit on their butts. The town I live in lost pretty much its whole economy when the mines closed down. Half the population left. The other half rebuilt the town from scratch around ranching, farming, tourism, small manufacturing businesses, and so forth. The generalization is false.
(c) I know a lot of gun owners. I am a gun owner. And none of the gun owners I know were driven to buy guns because they were depressed over losing their jobs. The link between gun ownership and economic depression is tenuous at best (I can see the argument that in a depressed economy, people buy a rifle and a hunting license to get venison for the freezer when they can’t afford beef…), and the generalization is false.
And, of course, the thread title is a misleading and offensive generalization. Hillary and her supporters are doing a lot more “crying like bitches” than the conservatives are.
You know when James Carville’s Crossfire devolved into Carlson and Begala’s Crossfire, Jon Stweart went on and called it meaningless partisan hackery and three months later CNN’s CEO cancels the show. There’s a lesson from history somewhere about this very thread.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
You know when James Carville’s Crossfire devolved into Carlson and Begala’s Crossfire, Jon Stweart went on and called it meaningless partisan hackery and three months later CNN’s CEO cancels the show. There’s a lesson from history somewhere about this very thread.
[/QUOTE]
I thought his point was that a political television program should use the opportunity it has to educate people on important issues rather than engage in he said/she said back and forth.
Is that wrong, and what is the lesson for this thread? Does this thread have any sort of obligation to educate people about important issues?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Is that wrong, and what is the lesson for this thread? Does this thread have any sort of obligation to educate people about important issues?
[/QUOTE]
This message board has no obligation whatsoever, I simply meant to point out that debate, when honest, is a wonderful exercise for all ones logical faculties, when not, is about as enlightening as a Klan rally.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
This message board has no obligation whatsoever, I simply meant to point out that debate, when honest, is a wonderful exercise for all ones logical faculties, when not, is about as enlightening as a Klan rally.
So continue.
[/QUOTE]
But each has its place – reasoned debate in GD, yee-haw lynching parties here in the Pit. Enjoy!
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
(c) I know a lot of gun owners. I am a gun owner. And none of the gun owners I know were driven to buy guns because they were depressed over losing their jobs. The link between gun ownership and economic depression is tenuous at best (I can see the argument that in a depressed economy, people buy a rifle and a hunting license to get venison for the freezer when they can’t afford beef…), and the generalization is false.
[/QUOTE]
If he had said, “cling to issues like guns and religon and immigration” would that be different? I ask, b ecause his argument is clearly that folks let the issues of those topics guide them, usually being steered along by conservatives, who play up these issues and ignore the issues that affect their ability to lead happy lives.
What is inane is how the echo chamber of media punditry runs with this issue once Clinton and McCain decide it is an issue. I have yet to hear anybody independent of these two, their rabid supporters and the vacuous member of the talking face media punditry crowd pretend this is really a huge insult. It’s idiotic for these folks to call Obama elitist for remarks which are essentially true while they pretend that they are somehow friends of the common man. It’s 100% grade A BS and folks who fall for it are idiots.
(a) People in big cities who lose their jobs react in the same way as people in small towns who lose their jobs. A small-town miner losing his job because the mine closes is in exactly the same straights as a big-city auto-worker losing his job because the car factory closes–and they’ll probably react the same way. The fallacious presentation of the reaction as a “small town” syndrome is why people consider it patronizing, and that’s why the generalization is false.
(b) There’s an implication there that small-town folks who lose their jobs just sit on their butts. The town I live in lost pretty much its whole economy when the mines closed down. Half the population left. The other half rebuilt the town from scratch around ranching, farming, tourism, small manufacturing businesses, and so forth. The generalization is false.
(c) I know a lot of gun owners. I am a gun owner. And none of the gun owners I know were driven to buy guns because they were depressed over losing their jobs. The link between gun ownership and economic depression is tenuous at best (I can see the argument that in a depressed economy, people buy a rifle and a hunting license to get venison for the freezer when they can’t afford beef…), and the generalization is false.
[/QUOTE]
(a) and (b) have nothing to do with what Obama said. He neither implied that this phenomenon was unique to small towns nor that such people are lazy. You’re reading those in with no basis for doing so. (c) is at least related to what he said, but as has been pointed out a half dozen times already, requires you to interpret his comments as sociology rather than political science.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
If he had said, “cling to issues like guns and religon and immigration” would that be different? I ask, b ecause his argument is clearly that folks let the issues of those topics guide them, usually being steered along by conservatives, who play up these issues and ignore the issues that affect their ability to lead happy lives.
[/QUOTE]
You’re doing the same thing Obama is being accused of. Who said they were “steered along by conservatives”? You’re implying that these people are too simple minded to make the right choices-- the choices you prefer-- and it must be because someone on the right “steered” them towards that choice. Especially about something like religion. That’s gonna be really insulting to a lot of people.
