U.S. Politics 19

[TerraPrime]

DG, TP,

I agree Limbaugh is across the line. What about the SNL skits with the comdenian speaking mock Chinese through an interpreter demanding Pres. Obama have anal sex with him since the US can't pay its debt to China? Across the line?

Somewhat. Although, in this case, the real butt of the joke is the American debt to China, not the Chinese language. I mean, it's really not that hard to find a comic who speaks Chinese.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Understood. But suggesting the Chinese premier would demand anal sex in compensation for that debt? That's rather demening too, isn't it?

[DanteGabriel]

TP,

Understood. But suggesting the Chinese premier would demand anal sex in compensation for that debt? That's rather demening too, isn't it?

Probably, but it's not racially demeaning. Unless that's a stereotype about Chinese people that I missed out on.

[TrackerNeil]

What is weak is your attempt to normalize the offensive behavior of Limbaugh by bringing up South Park. South Park's entire schtick is to BE deliberately offensive. It hardly helps your case when the only defense you got is that South Park did it and got away with it.

Don't be so quick to dismiss that, TP. I think there is a hidden genius in making South Park the criterion for acceptable discourse. Yes, its crazy, but so crazy it...just...might...work.

[Swordfish]

Well, you two should get your story straight.

or conversely, you should maybe learn that we are two different people, and thus are by no means required to have exactly the same story, yes?

[DanteGabriel]

or conversely, you should maybe learn that we are two different people, and thus are by no means required to have exactly the same story, yes?

Meh. All conservatives look alike to me.

[Hereward]

Meh. All conservatives look alike to me.

You really worry me.

:P

[Commodore]

Don't be so quick to dismiss that, TP. I think there is a hidden genius in making South Park the criterion for acceptable discourse. Yes, its crazy, but so crazy it...just...might...work.

All discourse is acceptable.

Ever since November it's been nothing but hand wringing and concern trolling about "extremism", "civility", "rhetoric".

Always happens when the right is ascendant, it's a pathetic attempt to shut them up when the left is losing the argument.

If someone affected a Russian accent to mock Stalin, would that offend you?

Tin pot dictatorships need to be ridiculed.

. Now apparently Obama wants to be compared to him.

[Shryke]

:lol: You mean Reagan who supported and funded multiple dictators in foreign countries?

[The Progressive]

:lol: You mean Reagan who supported and funded multiple dictators in foreign countries?

:lol: Good times!

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-250_162-10006471-5.html

[TerraPrime]

If someone affected a Russian accent to mock Stalin, would that offend you?

Of course, in this country, the history of the mistreatment of Russian immigrants is not the same as the mistreatment of Asian (mostly East Asian, such as Chinese and Japanese) immigrants, so your attempt to normalize falls short, again. One of the prevailing stereotype against Asian Americans is that they don't speak English very well. Ask any Asian American, and inevitably, they got asked at one point or another, whether they do have an accent or not, "What is your native language"? The use of incomprehensible sounds to represent Chinese is sourced from the same stereotype against Asians. In comparison, the stereotypes against Russian immigrants, the few that I can think of anyway, do not involve making fun of their language.

But then, I know that you probably don't care about the historical context that is specific to the ethnic minority groups in the U.S. I mean, why would you?

Also, you are trying to redefine the issue, which is that the mockery is on the language, not on the dictatorial form of governing. If Limbaugh had the balls and the wits to actually mock Hu in public over the human rights abuse issues, then I might actually be cheering Limbaugh for once. But he did not. You are attempting to equate the mocking of a language spoken by a dictator to the mocking of the dictator. It does not equate. It is of course okay to mock a dictator, but Limbaugh did no such thing, no matter how hard you want to spin.

So now that we've dispatched of your South Park comparison and your Russian accent red herring, what else have you got down in that bottom of the barrel there?

[BloodRider]

TP,

Understood. But suggesting the Chinese premier would demand anal sex in compensation for that debt? That's rather demening too, isn't it?

Now if it were a sketch about the Chinese demanding the same from the Greek Prime Minister, thats a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Although I guess technically still not racial.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Also, you are trying to redefine the issue, which is that the mockery is on the language, not on the dictatorial form of governing.

Sounded/read to me like Limbaugh was mocking the lack of a translator, and how that resulted in folks listening intently as if they understood something they clearly did not, rather than the language itself.

[TerraPrime]

Sounded/read to me like Limbaugh was mocking the lack of a translator, and how that resulted in folks listening intently as if they understood something they clearly did not, rather than the language itself.

If that were the case, then Limbaugh could have used other sounds, like, say "Blah blah blah" or somesuch. Instead, he chose to use a set of sounds that have been typically associated with mocking the language itself (c.f. Rosie).

[DanteGabriel]

Tin pot dictatorships need to be ridiculed.

. Now apparently Obama wants to be compared to him.

Nothing gets my goat quite as much as some Reagan fanboi speaking up about what a hero to oppressed peoples that old swindler was. Reagan supported never met a brutal right-wing dictator he didn't like, and we're suffering the blowback from his craven shitheel foreign policy, which all your lot are furiously trying to whitewash.

Fuck Ronald Reagan. Satan is perforating his corpse with a thousand barbed cocks as we speak.

Sounded/read to me like Limbaugh was mocking the lack of a translator, and how that resulted in folks listening intently as if they understood something they clearly did not, rather than the language itself.

Sounds/reads to me like a lot of our board conservatives are bending themselves into shapes that can only be viewed in the fourth dimension to defend some indefensible racist behavior.

[Kosciuszko]

But is it a barbed namble cock? Curious minds want to know.

[DanteGabriel]

There's a great blog post here about Reagan.

Interesting suggestion that to claim that Reagan toppled the USSR with his policies that it sort of suggests that Communism wasn't fatally flawed.

That was a good article. I was only 11 years old when that treacherous huckster left office and I still have enough sense to know that the current right-wing fanwanking over their undead hero is complete bullshit.

But I suppose, in comparison to the prominent Republicans we've had since the Great Defrauder was President, he really does seem like a giant. Maybe that's the last Republican President the right wing can plausibly pretend was good. All it takes is some rewriting of history, and ignoring his part in our massive deficits, philosophy of useless government, and arming both Bin Laden and Saddam.

[Commodore]

But I suppose, in comparison to the prominent Republicans we've had since the Great Defrauder was President, he really does seem like a giant. Maybe that's the last Republican President the right wing can plausibly pretend was good. All it takes is some rewriting of history, and ignoring his part in our massive deficits, philosophy of useless government, and arming both Bin Laden and Saddam.

Arming indigenous peoples to stop Soviet expansion was a worthy venture, it might have avoided WWIII. A lesser of two evils.

[Commodore]

Interesting article on whether or not waivers are constitutional. Can the executive branch decree certain people don't have to obey a law?

I'm trying to think of comparable examples, I'm sure there are some.

In general we've moved more and more away from a nation of laws toward a nation of decrees. Now we have decrees that are applied selectively, often by a single person ("The HHS Secretary shall determine..."). The EPA in particular can by decree create profound changes to personal behavior and economic activity, and there is no mechanism to stop them, no need for consensus. Come to think of it, the EPA is deep in the waiver business as well.

I like Rand Paul's idea of having all regulations sunset and expire within a year unless approved by Congress.

[ThinkerX]

'Philip Hamburger'?

'Gearge W Bush Presidential Center'?

Apart from that, the article isn't bad; it just points out one of the things that will kill ACA even if the mandate stands...or especially if it stands.

Powerful corporations *will* get exemptions from the provisions of the bill that cost them money.

Insurance companies *will* automatically become 'too big to fail' and (deliberately) act in a stupid and incompetent manner that will force the goverment to bail them out.

And health care...will remain unaffordable for most of the people whom this law is allegedly intended to help.

And congress will be far too spineless and gridlocked to enact any sort of truly significant positive change - something all too many of the posters here completely fail to grasp.