Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

To all who responded to my posts, thank you for participating in my study of you.  To everyone else, sorry for the interruption.

[knaveofstaves]

It's been a trend before Obama and Dubya. I'd say the really kooky levels of disbelief in reality started with Clinton.
...
I don't remember the batshit crazy being there with Bush I or Reagan

There aren't enough data points for a trend. There was no "really kooky level of disbelief" on the left about the list of things nenjin gave earlier. Bush really did torture people. He really did send them off to foreign hellholes, with no concern for due process of law or cruel and unusual punishment. He really did send our military off to occupy Iraq based on lies and bad evidence.

I was being generous to Republicans. And we all seem to forget Loose Change, don't we?

Yeah, 9/11 truthers are crazy, and at one point the poll numbers were comparable. That is not a good thing. However I think this is another false equivalence, because the question about Bush leaves more room for interpretation. Bush abandoned the Clinton adminstration framework for dealing with al-Qaeda, negligently replacing it with nothing, and did nothing when told Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US. The additional impugning of Bush's motives in the poll makes me uncomfortable, and I would have told the pollster no, but Bush is guilty of a lesser and closely related offense: he knew or should have known in August 2001 that al-Qaeda was going to attack the U.S., and he didn't do what he had been advised to do (Clinton framework, PDF) to stop it.

That muddies the waters, and makes a false equivalence in the comparison to "Was Barack Obama born in the United States?", to which the answer always should have been yes, given a short-form certificate, a GOP governor's word, and two newspapers backing it up.

You know, I'm a liberal and a registered democrat and I still find that attitude annoying. Just like I did back then, when I still was a liberal and a registered democrat. But thanks for reminding anyone why it was hard to get any conservatives to even listen back then, on issues that really mattered.

Your both-sides-do-it attitude serves the Republican Party. If you want me to believe you're a Democrat, stop supporting the Republicans in your rhetoric. And I won't stop calling people out because it annoys them, people are often annoyed when you tell them that they're wrong.

[Africa]

To all who responded to my posts, thank you for participating in my study of you.  To everyone else, sorry for the interruption.

Lol

The "Guys it was all a social experiment you played into my hands!" troll.

Now the scary thing about the Bush administration and 9/11 is that they were already planning to go attack Iraq and 9/11 just happened to provide them a perfect excuse. That's a real conspiracy theory to get excited about.

And yeah, you better believe a huge amount of hostility against Obama is due to his skin color. Nobody will admit it, but come on. The generation that harrassed little black girls for daring to go to a white school is still alive. You think there's no hardcore racists left?

And: For all the anti-Obama shrieking coming out of Israel, he sure hopped onto AIPAC's circumcised junk in a big way.

[RedKing]

There were also people who were honestly worried about the introduction of martial law, about potential postponement of elections (in 2004 and in 2008), about any number of things for which there simply was no evidence--just a general "He's evil! He must be up to something!" sort of feeling about Bush. And a similar feeling about Clinton and Obama which engendered their respective batch of crazy detractors.

While there were people upset with Bush I's involvement in the 1st Gulf War (not many) and with his reversal on tax increases, there was nowhere near as virulent or as entrenched level of 'crazy' opposition. Though now that I think about it, the seeds were planted during Bush I. After his reversal on taxes, his somewhat warmer-than-expected diplomatic stance towards the UN and the former Soviet bloc, and especially his use of US forces in Panama and Kuwait, there were some paleoconservatives on the far right (such as Pat Buchanan) that began warning of globalism and a "New World Order". The fact that Bush actually used the phrase in a State of the Union address in 1990 didn't help.

[Bauglir]

I don't think, "If you are okay with anything about the Republicans, you're not a real Democrat" is a good argument, considering the reverse is the primary problem I have with what seems to be the Republican belief (for those at the Federal level, anyway). If acknowledging a truth serves the Republican party, then they ought to be given that service, even by Democrats. And if acknowledging a truth serves the Democrat party, then they ought be given that service, even by Republicans.

It isn't about which team wins.

[nenjin]

Your both-sides-do-it attitude serves the Republican Party. If you want me to believe you're a Democrat, stop supporting the Republicans in your rhetoric. And I won't stop calling people out because it annoys them, people are often annoyed when you tell them that they're wrong.

So now my word isn't good enough that I'm a Democrat, I have to prove it to you? Congratulations, you just broke the Irony-Hypocrisy Speed Barrier.

And your hysterical "us vs. them" attitude about my opinion just makes it a two-for. Bush's behavior is beside the point. (Nice link spam btw, I was alive then too.) It's the zealotry with which people, like you just did, line up along party lines to start freaking out. I can hold a rational conversation about where Bush was a bad president without foaming at the mouth, just like I can listen to people, even Republicans, disagree with Obama's particular policy moves and not call them out for being a "bad democrat" or "the enemy."

So yeah. Democrats can be just as bad as Republicans in going off the deep end, even when the source of their discontent is far more justified. Republicans, as always though, outperform the Democrats there too.

There were also people who were honestly worried about the introduction of martial law, about potential postponement of elections (in 2004 and in 2008), about any number of things for which there simply was no evidence--just a general "He's evil! He must be up to something!" sort of feeling about Bush. And a similar feeling about Clinton and Obama which engendered their respective batch of crazy detractors.

And that shit drove Republicans INSANE. The baseless fears of what Bush didn't do poisoned pretty much every conversation up until the point evidence came out about what he was doing. I think that's partly what's lead to the total breakdown of communications we're seeing today. Republicans couldn't even talk to Democrats after Bush was elected in 2000. "Forced conscription" wasn't as kooky as "death panels" but it had the same net impact. Nobody wanted to listen to the other side at all.

And it's basically the same now. Democrats can't talk to Republicans without hearing a bunch of non-relevant shit they don't want to hear about. Republicans are utterly convinced they're fighting to save this country for going to hell.

[jester]

As a non american, I hope the tea party actually runs a serious campaign (no I dont really think thats gonna happen) just so you crazy kids can move away from a 2 party system

[PTTG??]

The basic election system prevents anything but a two-party system from existing. What we must do is change the electoral system to the "alternative voting" system.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If a third party was going to become mainstream in American politics, it'd be the Libertarian Party. The Green Party is relatively large as well, as is the Constitution Party. The Tea Party isn't an actual political party at all, it's a conservative, libertarian, and religious populist movement.

[Strife26]

Mind you, the core Tea Party platform of "Let's not spend buttloads of money" seems kinda sound, you know?

[Leafsnail]

If you remove all the practical elements of any political party's suggestions they seem pretty sound.

[Africa]

Mind you, the core Tea Party platform of "Let's not spend buttloads of money" seems kinda sound, you know?

Yeah, but not the "let's cut essential programs" part, which goes hand in hand with it. Leafsnail nailed. Leafsnailed it.

[PTTG??]

Mind you, the core Tea Party platform of "Let's not spend buttloads of money" seems kinda sound, you know?

HA HA HA HA

Cutting the US budget is impossible.
There are precisely four things that may not, under any circumstances, be cut:

- DoD (Department of Derp)
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Sudo-expense: intrest on the debt

We are currently spending about $1.33 for every $1 received in taxes and other income. If we cut everything besides those four things to 0, then we would be spending about $1.10-1.20 for every dollar received. That doesn't include the fact that the economy would implode. (Again)

Only way out is to raise taxes and/or start charging the rest of civilization for the service we provide in policing the world.

Note that Social Security has it's own weird financial doohickeys.

[knaveofstaves]

So now my word isn't good enough that I'm a Democrat, I have to prove it to you? Congratulations, you just broke the Irony-Hypocrisy Speed Barrier.

Your word is good enough for me, until you start doing things that make you sound like a Republican. Please explain how this is either ironic or hypocritical.

And your hysterical "us vs. them" attitude about my opinion just makes it a two-for. Bush's behavior is beside the point.

Beside your point, perhaps, but not mine. My point is that you said:

Anyways, it's just been a trend of Obama's presidency that those who truly dislike him will agree to the plausibility of just about any negative statement until it's been utterly debunked. Again I'd compare it to how GWB was viewed by demos and liberals, except their anger was more directed at the executive orders, wiring tapping, torture and military action.

When comparing the responses to Bush's presidency with the responses to Obama's presidency, what Bush's behavior actually was is a key part of the discussion. Please explain how this is hysterical.

(Nice link spam btw, I was alive then too.) It's the zealotry with which people, like you just did, line up along party lines to start freaking out. I can hold a rational conversation about where Bush was a bad president without foaming at the mouth, just like I can listen to people, even Republicans, disagree with Obama's particular policy moves and not call them out for being a "bad democrat" or "the enemy."

It's not link spam, it's citing my sources, something which your posts could benefit from. For instance: please link to where you disagreed with a policy move of Obama's, and where I called you a "bad Democrat" or "the enemy" for doing so. In the alternative, please explain why you're bringing that up there if you're not trying to imply I did it.

As it happens, I am not an epistemic gatekeeper, at least not at the line you've drawn. I love it when people criticize Obama, I just want it to be about something real. I think the Eleventh Commandment lobotomizes the Republican Party, and I would love it if men like David Frum carried the day and turned the GOP into a party I could consider supporting.

And to bring this thread back round to its original home, Obama went to AIPAC and Reuters called the speech a slap at Netanyahu. Give the man credit, he went into the lion's den and pulled its tail.

[Africa]

Another way out of debt, just maybe, would be to reduce defense spending to "mindfuckingly astronomical."