Outrageous

@georgeob1,

Quote:

OK, Both Msolga and Setanta think that the political right - both loonies and the establishment - have been mean to their darling Obama and have unfairly reviled and tormented him, questioning both his origins and noting dark suspicions of radicalism in his political views. On the other hand, I find this all more or less the standard stuff of politics ......

georgeob 1
This isn't hugely important to the discussion we're having here, so I'll keep this brief. But I do want to respond to this comment.
I don't know where exactly you got the impression that Obama is my "darling". Actually he isn't, though I certainly do consider his administration a welcome improvement on the the previous one. I also consider him hugely more intelligent & articulate than the previous president of the US. But my "darling", who can do no wrong? You're wrong about that. In fact, I have been quite critical of the direction of the war in Afghanistan under the leadership of his administration (on another thread here). I really wish you wouldn't make patronizing assumptions about my political beliefs & motivations. I wouldn't dream of doing the same to you. I don't know you nearly well enough, besides! Wink

OK, please continue the discussion now, folks.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Ms Olga - Afghanistan was never mentioned on this thread, and, since you mentioned it, I can assure you that GeorgeOB (for whom I don't speak, though in this instance I do state my true knowledge and belief about my own knowledge, unconditionally, and, conditioned on the above reservation, on his as well) shares my and many others' grief, even after all these years, for the disaster at Gallipoli. It was, unless I'm mistaken, yet another British mess, though not quite comparable to catastrophic efforts to control the Khyber pass - and btw, not anywhere near as successful as running great clipper ships carrying opium to the Chinese, growers of the tea plants. Not sure how to address the rest of your post unless you clarify. Thank you very much.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

No need to address the rest of my post at all, High Seas. I just wanted to say what I said. Which I did. Smile

I really don't want to side-track this thread, though .... OK?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

ain't you supposed to be some kinda scietifical deduction sort of person

even i got msolga's afghanistan bit, she was using to illustrate that she has some reservations to mr. obama's leadership, and is not a complete fanatical devotee

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

No need to address the rest of my post at all, High Seas. I just wanted to say what I said. Which I did.

I really don't want to side-track this thread, though .... OK?

Always very glad to see you, Ms Olga, and to read anything you have to say. You're a true lover of the seas and the creatures living in them and in a very real sense you're aware that when the oceans die it's the end for everybody else on our planet. All good wishes to you, and thanks for the enormous efforts of the Australian and New Zealand ships in rescuing dolphins, whales, sharks and other intelligent relatives of ours Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Thanks, high Seas.

But I think we'd better return to the thread topic now. Wink

0 Replies

After an exchange of private messages, i think i need to further clarify my statement of opinion in the matter of the reaction to Mr. Obama. My remarks were addressed to O'George, and had to do with his claim that this is par for the course for new presidents. I don't agree, for the reasons i outlined. I then pointed out that i don't think the reaction is necessarily motivated by racism.

Please note that my remarks concerned Republicans in office. Ordinarily, new presidents are accorded at least a brief "honeymoon," and i don't think the Republicans have been doing that--they've been very ungracious, and some have even been strident nearly to the point of hysteria. It was to them that i referred when i said that one cannot necessarily automatically assume that racism is the motive. Mr. Obama is the first true liberal in the White House in 30 years--the last one was, arguably, Mr. Carter. Mr. Clinton was a conservative Democrat, for however much the lunatic fringe on the right foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. This hysterical response on the part of more reasonable conservatives stems, i think from the horror of seeing a real liberal in office, something many of them have never seen in their adult lives--and they're peeing themselves over it.

But i also want it understood that i'm not so naive as not to understand that for much of the lunatic fringe on the right, racism--pure and simple--is the motive. And i'd speculate that a hell of a lot of conservatives on the sunny side of the lunatic fringe are motivated by racism, too.

1 Reply

What really gets me is how those who shrill the most get away with it in the so called liberal media without being called upon when they spout misleading or outright untrue statements.

Rove on Fox news claimed the president used his speech to the students to invite unity with him personally. (or words that effect) He claimed that the president was going to have students write to the president what they can do to help the president which was then changed to help themselves and then the president would write them back. This is a false charge, it was never intended for the students to write to the president, only to themselves and the president was not going to write them back.

Quote:

Rove is lying when he says “students are now being encouraged to write the president.” In fact, the only letters mentioned in the suggested activities for either Grades preK-6 or Grades 7-12 would be addressed to the students “themselves.” “Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress,” says the Grades preK-6 packet.

source

Fox news and at times the other cable news networks gives out false information all the time and they never go back and correct it when it is pointed out on Internet blogs who keep up with this sort of thing backed up by evidence. (of which the above source has links)

Talk about spreading doctrine, Fox news has been doing it for years and the past administration used fox news all through out their term to spread their own messages.

As one specific example: spreading information with the Iraq war through retired generals of which they fed information and they in turn relayed on Fox news (and other networks) as supposed independent knowledgeable analysis.

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

Now that really is spreading doctrine.

I don't know how Rove and those other guys can say with a straight face some of the stuff they have been saying since Obama has been office. When they go on about how health care reform interferes with individual choices and freedoms while at the same time they support banning same sex marriage by changing the constitution, it just blows me away they get away with it with the average Jo/Joe blow American.

1 Reply

@revel,

...and what's more, George H.W. Bush DID ask students to write to him in his address! (Note, I don't think that's a terrible thing.)

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

George H.W. Bush DID ask students to write to him in his address!

But George H.W. Bush wasn't a SOCIALIST!

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

...and what's more, George H.W. Bush DID ask students to write to him in his address! (Note, I don't think that's a terrible thing.)

And Democrats investigated and held hearings about it as a result.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

... Mr. Obama is the first true liberal in the White House in 30 years--the last one was, arguably, Mr. Carter. Mr. Clinton was a conservative Democrat, for however much the lunatic fringe on the right foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. This hysterical response on the part of more reasonable conservatives stems, i think from the horror of seeing a real liberal in office, something many of them have never seen in their adult lives--and they're peeing themselves over it.

There we have Setanta's view on the matter. Given his experience with hysteria and foaming at the mouth, perhaps we should take him seriously.

Then there is this;

Setanta wrote:

But i also want it understood that i'm not so naive as not to understand that for much of the lunatic fringe on the right, racism--pure and simple--is the motive. And i'd speculate that a hell of a lot of conservatives on the sunny side of the lunatic fringe are motivated by racism, too.

This is the universal, self-fulfilling debate stopper for those who are either too lazy to think or too partisan to even care.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

sozobe wrote:
...and what's more, George H.W. Bush DID ask students to write to him in his address! (Note, I don't think that's a terrible thing.)

And Democrats investigated and held hearings about it as a result.

Let's be honest - the complaints were totally different.

From your link -

Quote:

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

The Dems complained that Bush was using the speech as a campaign commercial, not that he was trying to indoctrinate students.

This push to prove that the Republicans aren't doing anything wrong, by attempting to find a corollary action by the Dems, is getting a little tired, man.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

This is the universal, self-fulfilling debate stopper for those who are either too lazy to think or too partisan to even care.

Yeah, how despicable. If only Set would stick to accusing his opponents of having Maoist mindsets and being naive when they ask for proof of one's arguments, that would really heighten the level of debate around here.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

This is the universal, self-fulfilling debate stopper for those who are either too lazy to think or too partisan to even care.

Yeah, how despicable. If only Set would stick to accusing his opponents of having Maoist mindsets and being naive when they ask for proof of one's arguments, that would really heighten the level of debate around here.

Cycloptichorn

it's not all racism. but a lot of it is. some of same the innuendo tactics were used against harold ford in tennessee in the last mid term. but that's okay. stupid is as stupid does.

more worrisome to me is the hysterical nature of a lot of the attacks against obama. getting people whipped into a frenzy of despair is a really good way to make really bad things happen.

the worst part is that the folks pushing all of this would most likely have zero accountability if something devastating happened due to their exhortations.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

An all around snide and sarcastic post, which did not address the substance of what i wrote. These days, though, i expect no better from O'George.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

it's not all racism. but a lot of it is. some of same the innuendo tactics were used against harold ford in tennessee in the last mid term. but that's okay. stupid is as stupid does.

That's exactly the point i was making. O'George missed, or, more likely, willfully ignored my earlier post in which i pointed out that i don't believe that the Republicans in office who have been relentlessly attacking Mr. Obama are necessarily motivated by racism. He'd rather play the reverse race card.

Quote:

more worrisome to me is the hysterical nature of a lot of the attacks against obama. getting people whipped into a frenzy of despair is a really good way to make really bad things happen.

the worst part is that the folks pushing all of this would most likely have zero accountability if something devastating happened due to their exhortations.

Very likely, the bad consequences of the hysteria campaign will not be directly obvious, will not be self-evident, because the greedy, screw you if you can't afford it, corporate health care system will continue to limp along, and there will be no smack you in the face obvious detriment. Certainly you can assure yourself that the rabble rousers who are whipping up hysteria have no problem getting health care for themselves and their families--and buying their oxycontin.

0 Replies

@snood,

I happen to agree from where I stand that there is something off-putting about the adoration of Obama. It's over the top. The entire process has been over the top: I don't blame a specific person nor side.

It's not meant to be insulting. But it's as though Americans have forgotten how to engage in politics - as a group, as the people - without looking really stupid and being immature about the whole thing.

To so many, you hear how it's viewed as two sides being so radically different. It all looks like the same to me. Two sides of the same coin. The drama is just silly.

Remember Obama's inauguration? Far from giving me a feeling of wanting to cry with joy with and for the American people, I found it horrifying and pretty damn sad. All those people crying. All the entertainers turning it into a freak show and television performance.

1 Reply

@mushypancakes,

Presidential inaugurations have been celebrity freak shows for a long time.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's be honest - the complaints were totally different.

No, they weren't substantially different. It's amazing how big a tiny difference can get to you if you are trying to rationalize your exaggerated condemnation for your political opponents. The real difference is that the sides are switched and you are willing to rationalize the same thing on your side.

Quote:

The Dems complained that Bush was using the speech as a campaign commercial, not that he was trying to indoctrinate students.

Republicans have said that they'd be fine with him talking to students if it weren't political in nature and before this all started there were elements to the event that could have become politicized. This is just wordplay trying to find moral high ground. The bottom line is that the Democrats complained about Bush talking to kids too and in both cases the main concern was of politicizing the event and in both cases the concern was overblown.

This time seems a lot more overblown to me (with help from both sides, I might add), but I'm tired of hearing liberals tell me (both here and offline) that this is oh so unprecedented, and that this is a "tradition" that their side never thought to complain about.

It's just not true, but when it is pointed out it becomes "but it was different". When the charges are this slippery it seems like the whole point is just the condemnation, and the content doesn't really matter as long as they can keep calling foul.

Quote:

This push to prove that the Republicans aren't doing anything wrong, by attempting to find a corollary action by the Dems, is getting a little tired, man.

I've never said the Republicans aren't doing anything wrong Cyclo. Why do things have to be so darn black or white to you? I think partisan hacks are ridiculous, but find that putting blinders on to the same partisan nonsense from your own side to be both ridiculous and hypocritical.

The incessant rationalization is getting tired to me. This is delusional. Every time the president changes I hear ideologues going on about just how unprecedented the very routine political attacks are, they condemn the political attacks and conveniently forget that their side used the same playbook while they were running the opposition. When Bush became president and the right began trying to shush the left they went on about how the hatred was so very unheard of too and so very disrespectful, forgetting how partisan the attacks against Clinton were. Now that Obama is president it's the left's turn to take on this naive and self-serving notion I guess. You guys have such short memories, we had these same discussions right here on a2k when Bush became president. You guys had to remind the right wingers that no, they weren't respectful and non-partisan when Clinton was president.

If you ever point out that the things that they pointing at were things their side has done in the past then it becomes quibbling about tiny differences to try to find moral high ground.

But I'm tired of pointing it out anyway, when group of people have decided that to dislike something they will often compete to see who can become the most scathing in their condemnations, and I'm most likely wasting my time trying to find edifying political discussion here. <insert dumb insults about mouth breathers or something scathing>

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know