World Politics

[redtreviso]

Again, twisting things around - I write "tea baggers" - ie the extreme of the extreme, like your use of "committed leftists" as opposed to "liberals" - and you take that as interchangeable with "Tea Party". Notice the difference? Say, the use of lower case and the lack of capitalization?

But you do raise a point in that I should avoid using "tea baggers" in any case - it's overly derogatory.

The TeaBaggers named themselves.

 

[redtreviso]

""Perhaps the greatest triumph of capitalist materialism in the United States has been to isolate us and keep us out of the public spaces for any purpose but those that are sanctioned by the Law and that have consumption as a purpose. In other words, recreation and leisure is fine - go to the park with your kids, go to a football game - but anything that is remotely challenging to the approbation of those with power (not just the 1%, but those who defend their interests all around us) must be condemned and confronted.

(An aside: This actually points up the major difference between the Tea Party and OWS: the Tea Party exists to give aid and comfort to the powerful, so, of course, it is met with mostly head-patting approval by officials and businesses.)

Public spaces, and parks especially, have meaning beyond just being play areas and homeless zoos. When all those poor people gathered in the heat in the early 20th century, they were merely doing what they knew. See, when conservatives talk about the way "neighbors" relied on each other, they forget that, minus TV, minus smart phones, minus the myriad alienating distractions that have been foisted upon us, and that we embrace, those same people would also talk politics, face to face, a great deal more than we do now. That's how movements started.""

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

 

[VeloCity]

See, this is where you get in trouble and why the content of what you write is questionable. Here's the whole post;



Again, your words.

If you want to try and convince this board that I'm "twisting" your words then be my guest.

I corrected that - I misread your post.

But ok, let's settle this once and for all so you're clear: I believe that most members of the Tea Party are motivated at least in part by a deep-seated, personal dislike of Obama that has nothing to do with his policies, and at least part of that is because of his race. I also believe that racist attitutes in general are far more prevalent in the far right wing - including the Tea Party - than any other segment of our society.

Clear enough?

And yes, actually, you do twist things around. I've pointed that out before.

 

[Anonymous]

I corrected that - I misread your post.

But ok, let's settle this once and for all so you're clear: I believe that most members of the Tea Party are motivated at least in part by a deep-seated, personal dislike of Obama that has nothing to do with his policies, and at least part of that is because of his race. I also believe that racist attitutes in general are far more prevalent in the far right wing - including the Tea Party - than any other segment of our society.

Clear enough?

And yes, actually, you do twist things around. I've pointed that out before.

But ok, let's settle this once and for all so you're clear: I believe that most members of the Tea Party are motivated at least in part by a deep-seated, personal dislike of Obama that has nothing to do with his policies, and at least part of that is because of his race. I also believe that racist attitutes in general are far more prevalent in the far right wing - including the Tea Party - than any other segment of our society.

Clear enough?

Yep. This is not a new way of thinking and is very typical of the left. Saul Alinsky-ish even.

And yes, actually, you do twist things around. I've pointed that out before.

I guess the board will just have to take you at your word on this.

 

[redtreviso]

Meanwhile in whiskey tango dfistan

""Re: "Obama has ended the war ..." by Henry Harris, Tuesday Letters.
This letter says that President Barack Obama rather than God deserves the praise for ending former President George W. Bush's war and finally allowing us to say, "Mission accomplished." May I add for the millionth and hopefully the last time that the banner with that phrase was never intended to indicate the end of our armed struggle in Iraq, as Bush eloquently explained that day.
It only referred to the end of major military operations involving the carrier group and the hundreds of fighters, bombers, missile launchers and their related support craft who were returning.
President Bush said that day: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." Many of the commentators from the major media said the president's speech and his heroic appearance would be difficult for the opposition to counter. In a classic and brilliant use of coordinated propaganda, they focused only on the banner, twisted its meaning and used it for their own purposes rather than uplifting the country.
Stephen Boone, Garland

http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/10/dont-rewrite-bu.html

For the millionth time.. good luck with that..

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't see everything in absolutes that even the use of "Tea Party" wouldn't mean every single person in the Tea Party. You see what you want to see, I suppose.

But you do raise a point in that I should avoid using "tea baggers" in any case - it's overly derogatory.

You are a curiosity.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't see everything in absolutes

In the next breath you'll lecture me on how absolute man-made global warming is. The science is "in", and all...

 

[VeloCity]

Yep. This is not a new way of thinking and is very typical of the left. Saul Alinsky-ish even.

So you criticize others for making broad generalizations by making...broad generalizations. Good one.

And Saul Alinsky? Come on. That's like me using Barry Goldwater or Bill Buckley. Both of whom, btw, were racist.

In any case, maybe you should think about why the far right - and the Tea Party specifically - has that reputation instead of just brushing it off because, even though you personally aren't an extremist and aren't racist, you don't want to believe that exists among the right.

I guess the board will just have to take you at your word on this.

Board's already seen it. Extrapolating "Tea Party" to "conservatives" as a whole, for eg. Climate change - "catastrophic", even though no one said anything about catastrophic. Just off the top of my head.

 

[VeloCity]

In the next breath you'll lecture me on how absolute man-made global warming is. The science is "in", and all...

Nah, that's just a waste of time. It's obvious that it doesn't matter in the least what amount of evidence anyone points you toward, you'll just believe what you want to believe. And btw, no one except you talks about "absolutes" in science.

But yes, the science is in (although apparently you don't understand what that actually means). Not my problem if you refuse to accept it.

 

[blutto]

.

Either way, my point holds. Moore is a liar. The image proves that. Attack the messengers all you want but the message itself, is untouchable.

...you know on first blush you are absolutely right....

..but unfortunately there is a little more here than meets the eye on a quick scan of just another page of just another thread of just another forum...

..you see, the sin that Moore seems to have committed here is what in the film industry is called a cross-cut ( a form of editing that helps tell the story the film-maker is trying to tell...and by the way, they all tell stories, that is basically what they do.. )....and as such, it is simply part of the film making vocabulary...now if you look around you will find that everybody edits film...so by your terms do they all tell lies?

...but the problem here is that in absolute terms every edit ever made is a lie because they all break the bond between the edited piece and the structure within which it was originally embedded....in much the same way, quotations are also, in absolute terms, lies....

...so what exactly are you accusing Moore of doing?....of being a film-maker who uses standard film making vocabulary to tell a story?...or having the audacity to a have a view that is different than yours?...

... ...so in my ever so humble opinion, I think, that upon a second sober look, your self styled unassailable point is just more of the Pretentious Puffery that are you so renowned for...

Cheers

blutto

 

[redtreviso]

So you criticize others for making broad generalizations by making...broad generalizations. Good one.

And Saul Alinsky? Come on. That's like me using Barry Goldwater or Bill Buckley. Both of whom, btw, were racist.

In any case, maybe you should think about why the far right - and the Tea Party specifically - has that reputation instead of just brushing it off because, even though you personally aren't an extremist and aren't racist, you don't want to believe that exists among the right.
Board's already seen it. Extrapolating "Tea Party" to "conservatives" as a whole, for eg. Climate change - "catastrophic", even though no one said anything about catastrophic. Just off the top of my head.

Conservatives and Republicans in general are racists.. It is what conservatism and republicanism means to them.. Oh sure they can try to talk political policy and quote tax tables but question why they call themselves conservative or republican and they look at their own skin.. "I am conservative.. can't you see?" They seem dumbstruck that you cannot tell just by looking at them so they bloviate on about anything.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Not a big Michael Moore fan, though I did think Capitalism: A Love Story was pretty good and probably his best film. He brought up some good points and asked some good questions not often discussed. I liked when he was talking to his father, or the guy trying to explain derivatives, Wallace Shawn offering an amateur economist view, and his priest for example. But he didn't do much to look into enough cause and effect, nor solutions. The last few minutes pandering to essentially the Obama hype was annoyingly slanted.

I did like Roger and Me quite a bit when it came out. Biased, but it had great emotional energy, true indie filmmaking when he was a nobody. Thought Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and Bowling for Columbine were like counter propaganda. The best parts of them were when he was letting someone else tell their story. Which unfortunately was too few and far between. Haven't seen his other works.

Interesting filmmaker, but Erroll Morris he's not.

 

[Anonymous]

So you criticize others for making broad generalizations by making...broad generalizations. Good one.

And Saul Alinsky? Come on. That's like me using Barry Goldwater or Bill Buckley. Both of whom, btw, were racist.

In any case, maybe you should think about why the far right - and the Tea Party specifically - has that reputation instead of just brushing it off because, even though you personally aren't an extremist and aren't racist, you don't want to believe that exists among the right.
Board's already seen it. Extrapolating "Tea Party" to "conservatives" as a whole, for eg. Climate change - "catastrophic", even though no one said anything about catastrophic. Just off the top of my head.

So you criticize others for making broad generalizations by making...broad generalizations. Good one.

Good catch. It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

In any case, maybe you should think about why the far right - and the Tea Party specifically - has that reputation

I don't pretend that there aren't racist elements in many walks of life. But the reputation exists because the fringe left wants this to be the narrative and they have a sympathetic ear in the mainstream media.

It doesn't matter if it's true. It only matters what the public's perception is.

even though you personally aren't an extremist and aren't racist

According to Redtreviso I am a racist. See how easy it is to paint with a broad brush? There was a time when the word 'racist' was horrifying. Now, it's so over-used it has become essentially meaningless.

Buchanan's a racist, Malkin's a racist, Goldwater's a racist, Buckley's a racist... and that's just in the last couple of pages.

 

[redtreviso]

Good catch. It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd.



I don't pretend that there aren't racist elements in many walks of life. But the reputation exists because the fringe left wants this to be the narrative and they have a sympathetic ear in the mainstream media.

It doesn't matter if it's true. It only matters what the public's perception is.



According to Redtreviso I am a racist. See how easy it is to paint with a broad brush? There was a time when the word 'racist' was horrifying. Now, it's so over-used it has become essentially meaningless.

Buchanan's a racist, Malkin's a racist, Goldwater's a racist, Buckley's a racist... and that's just in the last couple of pages.

Ayn Rand readers are psychopaths ."Finally,, justification and permission for my bad behavior and abhorrent personality". There was a time when the word Psychopath was horrifying, now it is used with pride to proclaim personal virtue. Perhaps Psychopath, Conservative and Republican are interchangeable. Who can I try to F*** over today?? Who can I talk about trying to F*** over today? Who do I wish I could F*** over today. Those people sure deserve to be F**** over today.. and There's one in the spotlight he don't don't right to me---------....

 

[VeloCity]

I don't pretend that there aren't racist elements in many walks of life. But the reputation exists because the fringe left wants this to be the narrative and they have a sympathetic ear in the mainstream media.

Look, we on the left have our own extremists, and they're not something we're proud of. We would like them to go away. But there's no point in denying that we have extremists. And being on the side where racism is more prevalent is not something to be proud of either, and I can understand why non-racist conservatives would like to think that they don't exist or wish that they'd go away. But like it or not, racism exists predominantly (not exclusively) on the far right.

Buchanan's a racist, Malkin's a racist, Goldwater's a racist, Buckley's a racist... and that's just in the last couple of pages.

That's because they are racist, and not because we say they are but because of what they themselves have said or written.

Especially Buchanan and Buckley. Granted it was at a time when to be openly racist was no big deal, but Buckley made no secret of his racism. He wrote entire articles and editorials in National Review touting white supremacy.

 

[Amsterhammer]

This is all one needs to know about Michael Moore and the stupidity of his apologists.

You waded in with the above, having decided that I was an 'apologist'. Your "this is all one needs to know" suggested to me that you really didn't understand jack ***t about the subject, hence my reply below, which I don't really consider "insulting" at all, merely my observation on your posted view.

"You really should stick to those excellent stage introduction posts. I strongly suspect that you know jack ***t about the issues of US life and society that MM exposes in a manner deliberately designed to annoy right-wingers. Which has clearly worked with you."

You then came back with -

So cheating, manipulation of facts, lying, all these things are ok, if they annoy your enemies?

Throw all the insults in the world you want at me, and everyone else who speaks out against the idea that manipulating facts is an acceptable way to present ones point of view (or in Moore’s case, to make a lot of money).

And please do continue to tell anyone who disagrees with you that they do not understand the world on the same level as yourself.

Either way, my point holds. Moore is a liar. The image proves that. Attack the messengers all you want but the message itself, is untouchable.

.....which, as Velocity pointed out, was indeed comparing apples with oranges. Michael Moore is a polemical film maker who regularly exaggerates, as well as using hyperbole and yes, even some sneaky tricks to make sure that his viewers are getting his intended message. He is a film maker, he's allowed to do that. Fox News claims to be a source of news. They are not allowed to use the same tricks and dress them up as fact. The basic facts and accusations underlying his films about gun control, health care, and what unbridled US capitalism has done to the country, are beyond dispute (unless you're a right winger with blinkers on).

His films attack conditions that, imho, deserve to be attacked because they are shameful and wrong. Charlton Heston deserved to be brought down a peg; I have no problem with MM using different edited bits of film to get his message across, or with him making money from his films. Or did you really think that your 'discovery' of different shirts in different clips was one of those 'Eureka' moments?

As for our relative understanding (or lack thereof) of the world we live in, and what I might think about yours - yes, I suspect that my age and background (when compared to what I know about yours) probably gives me greater insight into certain things, US politics and life being one of those. That doesn't necessarily make me smarter or necessarily more correct, it just means that I may have more knowledge and experience on which to base an informed opinion. Just as I have no problem with recognizing that your knowledge of cycling is far deeper and broader than mine. As far as I can tell, you are happy to pontificate on just about any subject that comes along. I stick to pontificating about things that I actually know something about.

 

[Amsterhammer]

You are killing me this morning....

The fact that you are evidently the only poster on this topic to pay any attention to the Texas troll, and that you even seem to find his smug one-liners funny, unfortunately speaks volumes about you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Look, we on the left have our own extremists, and they're not something we're proud of. We would like them to go away. But there's no point in denying that we have extremists. And being on the side where racism is more prevalent is not something to be proud of either, and I can understand why non-racist conservatives would like to think that they don't exist or wish that they'd go away. But like it or not, racism exists predominantly (not exclusively) on the far right.
That's because they are racist, and not because we say they are but because of what they themselves have said or written.

Especially Buchanan and Buckley. Granted it was at a time when to be openly racist was no big deal, but Buckley made no secret of his racism. He wrote entire articles and editorials in National Review touting white supremacy.

All these guys you mention above are some pure asshats. They make it on the ****bird list every time. Yet for some reason they find their way on FoxNews. That is just one of the reasons I will not watch the FoxNews. Hell Mark Fuhrman is one of their legal analyst.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Look, we on the left have our own extremists, and they're not something we're proud of. We would like them to go away.

Hey, stop picking on Red.

Seriously, who are your extremists of the left in the US context? Would you count Rhub and/or me amongst these based on what we have posted here?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The fact that you are evidently the only poster on this topic to pay any attention to the Texas troll, and that you even seem to find his smug one-liners funny, unfortunately speaks volumes about you.

QQ
Amsterhammer you seem like a really smart person. One who travels the world and gathers up knowledge and information. I have a question that has been troubling me ever since Scott put up that picture of the OWS protesters sign reading "I shaved my balls for this" and that guy getting a mohawk.

Is the government putting enough money into finding out why ball sacks have a seam?

 

[Anonymous]

The fact that you are evidently the only poster on this topic to pay any attention to the Texas troll, and that you even seem to find his smug one-liners funny, unfortunately speaks volumes about you.

Yes, the volumes spoken include a sense of humor.

 

[VeloCity]

Hey, stop picking on Red.

Seriously, who are your extremists of the left in the US context? Would you count Rhub and/or me amongst these based on what we have posted here?

Heh, no. In that post I was mostly referring to the hardcore extremists on both sides - on the left it would be the anarchists, communists, true Marxists, etc (ie not the conservative "Obama is a Marxist").

Which raises a point: scott accuses the left of throwing around terms like "racist" to the point where they become essentially meaningless, but couldn't one say the same of the right tossing around terms like "Marxist" or "socialist"? Conservatives don't seem to have much problem with labeling everyone on the left as such.

 

[VeloCity]

All these guys you mention above are some pure asshats. They make it on the ****bird list every time. Yet for some reason they find their way on FoxNews.

Don't think Buckley makes it onto FoxNews much these days And Buchanan is a frequent guest on MSNBC. You know, that liberal network.

 

[redtreviso]

""On Wednesday it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order that would require companies pursuing federal contracts to disclose political contributions that have been secret under the Citizen’s United ruling. A senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors.” Mr. von Spakovsky dutifully made all the right-wing, neo-con arguments including bringing Planned Parenthood and unions into the discussion. The draft order did not exempt any entity from disclosure rules and presents a reasonable requirement on contractors seeking government contracts. Several states have similar “pay to play” laws to prevent businesses from using unlimited donations to buy lucrative state contracts from slimy legislators. Thus far the only legislator who has railed against the proposed order was Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell called the proposal an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority,” and went on to say, “Just last year, the Senate rejected a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.”


The real objection Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have with the order is that it removes the possibility of corporate money influencing government more than it already does. The Citizens’ United ruling was a gift to Republicans who do the bidding of corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and it became obvious after reports that two Supreme Court Justices attended a secret Koch Industries strategy meeting prior to voting to extend free speech rights to corporations just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns.
""

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united

From the White Heritage Drunk Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_A._von_Spakovsky

 

[Anonymous]

Heh, no. In that post I was mostly referring to the hardcore extremists on both sides - on the left it would be the anarchists, communists, true Marxists, etc (ie not the conservative "Obama is a Marxist").

Which raises a point: scott accuses the left of throwing around terms like "racist" to the point where they become essentially meaningless, but couldn't one say the same of the right tossing around terms like "Marxist" or "socialist"? Conservatives don't seem to have much problem with labeling everyone on the left as such.

Yes you could.

It blurs the literal definitions of those terms.

Conservatives don't seem to have much problem with labeling everyone on the left as such.

Was this generalization for my benefit?

 

[Anonymous]

QQ
Amsterhammer you seem like a really smart person. One who travels the world and gathers up knowledge and information. I have a question that has been troubling me ever since Scott put up that picture of the OWS protesters sign reading "I shaved my balls for this" and that guy getting a mohawk.

Is the government putting enough money into finding out why ball sacks have a seam?

It does add a degree of difficulty when shaving down there.