U.S. Politics XL--Double Down it

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Going back to Jeremiah Wright is just as ridiculous as the false equivalency I made. OK, maybe not as ridiculous, but still pretty ridiculous. And sort of old, considering you've tried to use it multiple times

I don't recall ever mentioning the Wright angle before. I don't think it even occur to me until yesterday, as a matter of fact. The argument I did raise previously was tarring all antiwar protestors based on the over the top statements/banners/etc made by some of those protestors, which I think remains a valid point.

This particular accusation -- that one guy's tweet says something about Tea Partiers in general -- just struck me as particularly ridiculous, especially since the link provided mentioned that people were cancelling on this guy's rally precisely because of his offensive views. People argued that the President shouldn't be tarred by Wright's statements despite attending his church for years. Yet if someone goes to a tea party at which some jackass is merely present, not even making such statements publicly, you think it's fair to judge the people in attendance in general. That is blindingly inconsistent, and horribly unfair.

And given that some hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people have attended those Tea Parties, there is remarkably little audio documenting the widespread nature of such beliefs. The cameras can't seem to catch it, but people standing on the other side of the crowd are held responsible for it. Nice.

that you supposedly aren't a part of yet wholeheartedly defend on a near-constant basis

I admit knowing some people, including some friends and a couple of relatives, who have gone. They don't fit the picture you're painting. I did ask one of my friends what it was like, and if he saw anything offensive. He said he saw one guy carrying a sign that bothered him, but that he and everyone else seem to sort of steer clear of the guy and just listen to what the speakers were saying. The question boils down to whether a couple of jackasses should effectively be able to chase everyone else away from a legitimate political rally, and I don't think it should. YMMV.

even after members repeatedly display their hatred and ignorance.

Estimates of the number of people who've shown up at those rallies varies, but it's likely been over a million or so. Given those numbers, I'm rather surprised that there isn't more damning audio or video given how widespread the hatred and ignorance supposedly is. And if the cameras and audio don't seem able to catch it, why is it fair to impute awareness of it to everyone else at the rally?

Look, maybe you believe that as many as 30% of the people attending are "closet racists". I'd personally guess the figure is probably closer to 10-15%, but you never know, so let's assume 30%. Or even 40%. As long as the speakers themselves are engaging in legitimate commentary, I don't see why it is fair to smear that other 60% of the people who aren't closet racists.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm confused. Is the subtitle of this thread true or not?

[lokisnow]

true: see my last post in this thread.

[adamsputnik]

did I congratulate you guys on taking the first step towards what Australia was doing in 1973 yet?

Yeah, everyone loved Gough.

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, got it. But I have no idea what to do with this:

Look, maybe you believe that as many as 30% of the people attending are "closet racists". I'd personally guess the figure is probably closer to 10-15%, but you never know, so let's assume 30%. Or even 40%. As long as the speakers themselves are engaging in legitimate commentary, I don't see why it is fair to smear that other 60% of the people who aren't closet racists.

Let's say that 40% of a gathering were cannibals. Or child molesters. I'd probably, you know, associate elsewhere. Hell, even at 15%, I think I'd skip it. Even at the risk of smearing the other 85% percent of people who aren't child molesting cannibals.

[ThinkerX]

This used to be called Major Medical or Hospitalization, and it was the kind of insurance that people with insurance had. It was for catastrophic care that you couldn't afford to pay cash for. For your everyday medical needs, there was the local public health clinic, or your private doctor. And you paid cash for everything because you could.

Not that long ago, the only people who had insurance of any kind were people who couldn't afford to pay out of pocket.

Exactly. The current system is set up not to cure people, but to make money, which means jacking costs into the stratosphere. Problem with that is you eventually get the costs up so high that many or most people cannot afford medical treatment, so they do without. Meanwhile, the corrupt greedy morons who jacked the prices up have come to *depend* on the money for their outlandishly priced and often ineffective services, and are starting to be faced with the prospect of a lot of that money going away. So, instead of reducing costs, they go to the politicians - who they own outright - to force more suckers to be brought into the game. But even that will not be enough.

My prediction, which I've made some weeks in the past still stands:

Those of you who have health insurance will see your rates double or even triple before this legislation has been in effect for a year. Failing that, you will see some very steep fees tacked onto your package.

As to financing this monstrosity, there will be 'revenue shortfalls' within a year, serious problems within two years, and the whole dang thing will need a bailout within four or five years.

Meanwhile, the costs charged by the hospitals and pill companies will continue to skyrocket.

[Mad Monkey]

Okay, got it. But I have no idea what to do with this:

Let's say that 40% of a gathering were cannibals. Or child molesters. I'd probably, you know, associate elsewhere. Hell, even at 15%, I think I'd skip it. Even at the risk of smearing the other 85% percent of people who aren't child molesting cannibals.

That reminds me of that old joke (no offense) about how 99% of lawyers/politicians/cabbies give the rest a bad name.

Meanwhile, the costs charged by the hospitals and pill companies will continue to skyrocket.

How would you stop this, short of turning America into a totalitarian state that will make Brezhnev's Soviet Union look like Denmark.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm confused. Is the subtitle of this thread true or not?

That's a good question. I think its sort of a two parter.

The first part is what the poll itself actually means, and whether it is reliable. To me, a question asking whether you think blacks are "trustworthy" doesn't measure racism. Others may have a different opinion.

The second part is what is meant by the subheading, which is perhaps more interesting. The subheading is:

Polling shows teabaggers racist, hate immigrants & gays

To me, that begs the question of what is meant by "teabaggers", because there almost seems to be a word missing after "shows". Is it "all"? "Some"? Or is it literally true if even two fit the description?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Let's say that 40% of a gathering were cannibals. Or child molesters. I'd probably, you know, associate elsewhere. Hell, even at 15%, I think I'd skip it. Even at the risk of smearing the other 85% percent of people who aren't child molesting cannibals.

First, you have to know that they're child molesting cannibals in the first place. If they don't announce themselves, it's kind of tough to avoid them. And if you go to a tea party, and don't see overt evidence of racism, why leave? Because people with whom you disagree politically say they may be there?

Second, why are you going to that gathering in the first place? My guess is that any significant political rally, such as a visit by a Presidential candidate at which people are cheering, etc., probably has in attendance a fair number of people who have some views you consider odious or offensive. Even if he's "your guy". So does that mean you should not go to rallies for a candidate just because some of the people there may have views you think are wrong or offensive?

It's one thing if the offensive people start getting loud and controlling the message. I get that, because then the candidate's message is getting confused with that of the other people speaking. But if it's just the mere presence of some people with those views, and they're not advocating those specific views at that rally, do you still have an obligation to leave?

Because if that's the case, it looks to me like we're letting the fringies shut everyone else out.

[Jaime L]

This WaPo Editorial nicely sums up Republican intellectual dishonesty insanity.

To one outside the partisan and ideological wars, charges of radicalism, socialism, retreat and surrender are, frankly, bizarre. The Democrats' health-reform plan includes no public option and relies on managed competition through exchanges set up much like those for federal employees. The individual mandate in the plan sprang from a Heritage Foundation idea that was endorsed years ago by a range of conservatives and provided the backbone of the Massachusetts plan that was crafted and, until recently, heartily defended by Mitt Romney. It would be fair to describe the new act as Romneycare crossed with the managed-competition bill proposed in 1994 by Republican Sens. John Chafee, David Durenberger, Charles Grassley and Bob Dole -- in other words, as a moderate Republican plan. Among its supporters is Durenberger, no one's idea of a radical socialist.

....

The nuclear treaty with Russia excoriated by Palin, Savage and others was endorsed by Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the GOP's resident foreign policy expert, and it was crafted under Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was first appointed to that post by George W. Bush. Obama's approach to terrorism has been similar to Bush's, while more aggressively targeting leaders of terrorist groups; his larger foreign policy has received the seal of approval from James Baker, former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan and secretary of state to George H.W. Bush.

...

Looking at the range of Obama domestic and foreign policies, and his agency and diplomatic appointments, my conclusion is clear: This president is a mainstream, pragmatic moderate, operating in the center of American politics; center-left, perhaps, but not left of center. The most radical president in American history? Does Newt Gingrich, a PhD in history, really believe that [expletive]?

Obama could calmly explain the sky is blue and be greeted with a 1,000 voices from the Right screaming about how it's obviously red. It's like they believe if they keep repeating the same lies over and over again, that will make them true.

[lokisnow]

That's a good question. I think its sort of a two parter.

The first part is what the poll itself actually means, and whether it is reliable. To me, a question asking whether you think blacks are "trustworthy" doesn't measure racism. Others may have a different opinion.

Points for a second time to post 80, by me, on this thread; no one asked the question "are blacks trustworthy"

[Shryke]

That's a good question. I think its sort of a two parter.

The first part is what the poll itself actually means, and whether it is reliable. To me, a question asking whether you think blacks are "trustworthy" doesn't measure racism. Others may have a different opinion.

The second part is what is meant by the subheading, which is perhaps more interesting. The subheading is:

Polling shows teabaggers racist, hate immigrants & gays

To me, that begs the question of what is meant by "teabaggers", because there almost seems to be a word missing after "shows". Is it "all"? "Some"? Or is it literally true if even two fit the description?

It would be more accurate to say "Polling shows people who support the Tea Party much more likely to be racist, sexist and anti-homo".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Raidne, I forgot to add that over 40 percent of tea party opponents are racists too.

If you believe the poll, that is.

[ThinkerX]

A overview of one of the things that will wreck life as we know it in just a couple years time but are collectively much to cowardly to face up too:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm

The often hysterical responses also confirm the adage that 'De-nile ain't just a river in Egypt.'

[Elrick]

I know that this is kinda separate from the conversation but I wanted to see what you guys think about this guy who told me that Barack Obama is like Richard Nixon personality wise. Personally I thought that this analysis was ridicules, they couldn't be any more different in my mind at least.

What do you guys think?

[Alcibiades]

Nixon was paranoid and egomaniacal. I don't see any of that in Obama.

You can say they are both hyper ambitious, but I think that's a trait of anyone who manages to attain the presidency. Likewise, if your friend was basing his point on a perception that Obama is aggrandizing power to himself, I think that it's in the nature of our Executive to seek to maximize its own power. I cannot think of a President who purposefully downgraded his office's power (you can say presidents like Andrew Johnson lost power, but that was through fecklessness, not desire).

It's tough to really engage with your friend without knowing what personality traits he attributes to both men.

[Elrick]

Nixon was paranoid and egomaniacal. I don't see any of that in Obama.

You can say they are both hyper ambitious, but I think that's a trait of anyone who manages to attain the presidency. Likewise, if your friend was basing his point on a perception that Obama is aggrandizing power to himself, I think that it's in the nature of our Executive to seek to maximize its own power. I cannot think of a President who purposefully downgraded his office's power (you can say presidents like Andrew Johnson lost power, but that was through fecklessness, not desire).

It's tough to really engage with your friend without knowing what personality traits he attributes to both men.

He mentioned ambition and thoughtfulness before he did things. He also mentioned the media and how Obama lists the enemies he has in the media and said that Nixon did much the same thing.

Frankly I don't know if to think of this as an insult or a compliment. I was too young to know much about how people perceived Nixon before watergate. All I hear now was that he was a terrible president.

[Jaime L]

Another good thing to point out is that the Clinton plan of the early 90's and the Dem plan of this year are pretty dramatically different, yet the right-wing hysteria is almost identical. In fact, I think you could argue that it's even more intense today, though it may just feel that way because of how much more media we have now.

Exactly. Ideas no longer matter, only who presents them does. When you react the same way to everything, regardless of what's being proposed or how moderate or extreme it may be, your opinions no longer matter, because they're no longer a barometer reflecting reality let alone reasonable ideological opposition. What exactly are we supposed to take seriously?

[lokisnow]

I cannot think of a President who purposefully downgraded his office's power (you can say presidents like Andrew Johnson lost power, but that was through fecklessness, not desire).

Washington essentially downgraded his office's power in several ways, but most importantly in establishing a peaceful succession with his two term tenure/precedent.

[Shryke]

He mentioned ambition and thoughtfulness before he did things. He also mentioned the media and how Obama lists the enemies he has in the media and said that Nixon did much the same thing.

Frankly I don't know if to think of this as an insult or a compliment. I was too young to know much about how people perceived Nixon before watergate. All I hear now was that he was a terrible president.

Wait, since when did Obama have an enemies list?

Obama doesn't look kindly on Fox News afaik, but frankly, he'd be insane NOT to think of them as his enemy. They are.

As for Nixon .... not as bad as you might think from popular culture. He had some good ideas.

Of course, he was also paranoid and megalomaniacal to a certain extent. He won by pushing the Southern Strategy, a horror that still haunts us to this day. And he basically proved you could do whatever the fuck you wanted as President and not get charged for it.