My God... What An Idiot...

@Robert Gentel,

Making the rounds, and a propos considering Wilson's excuse that he just could not contain himself. Akin to Lou Gerhig contracting Lou Gerhig's Disease.

It would be more appropriate to your argument if the Bush/Hitler flag was done by me if you want to compare it with Mcgentrix lying about Pelosi calling her political opponents Nazis. But I didn't, and Mr Responsibility did. So your post is essentially a non-sequiter to the argument. But thanks for posting.

btw: Can you show me where I ever complained about Obama's name being manipulated, because I am not "the Left," unless you consider about 20 million people functioning as some sort of hive mind. I hope not, because I expect sharper thinking from one like you.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The difference is that ...

Every single day I read partisan hacks on the internet explaining away the "difference" of why it's not as bad when their side does something that they vilify the others for.

To put it very simply, I'm not nearly as impressed by the angles that they find to assert their differences and keep patting themselves on the back for the high ground they just made for themselves. It looks like the same nonsense to me and the contortions to try to rationalize it sound simoutaneously tortured and fatuous.

Quote:

There are Democratic extremists, we keep them on the fringe... but the Conservative Extremists are running the Republican party.

Whatever it takes dude. But do note that you happen to be on a thread where they are disavowing the bad behavior of one of their idiots.

"But, but the difference is...."

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

kuvasz wrote:

Making the rounds, and a propos considering Wilson's excuse that he just could not contain himself.

If you think this kind of thing is apropos we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it to be vapid. I didn't like it when political debate consisted of comparing Obama's name to Osama and take a dim view of comparing Wilson's name to diseases.

Quote:

It would be more appropriate to your argument if the Bush/Hitler flag was done by me if you want to compare it with Mcgentrix lying about Pelosi calling her political opponents Nazis.

What kind of tortured logic is this? I'm just showing you the context of what he is talking about, you had it all wrong with the editorial that it had nothing to do with.

I wasn't comparing claims about anything, I was pointing out the back story you seemed to have missed. But as per usual, here goes the rationalization about how it's so different depending on what side it comes from.

Quote:

But I didn't, and Mr Responsibility did. So your post is essentially a non-sequiter to the argument. But thanks for posting.

Sincere question: do you really think that the cute little appellations and mocking of names is some deep intellectual debate that I'm distracting from?

I don't see any meaty argument, just smug put downs.

Quote:

btw: Can you show me where I ever complained about Obama's name being manipulated, because I am not "the Left," unless you consider about 20 million people functioning as some sort of hive mind. I hope not, because I expect sharper thinking from one like you.

I never said anything about you complaining about the Obama name games (and will note that this is the kind of claim that you would start calling others "liar" for) I was merely remarking that I would find it incongruous that this kind of thing would be making the rounds so soon after such a prominent example of such vapidity being used against Obama and how strongly that kind of nonsense was, justifiably I might add, condemned.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

...witness all the folk here who cheered when a shoe was thrown at Bush but suddenly call for respect for Obama...

I don't remember people cheering, but I didn't read EVERY post either. I do remember people thinking that the display was evident of Iraqi distaste for Bush/USA in spite of many Bush admin statements contrary. That Irony might have been amusing to some, but not cheering in my opinion.

As for what's proper in the halls of congress, I see both sides of the argument. I think that it has nothing to do with respect for the office of the president and everything to do with respect for the office he held.

This obviously hurt him, but I don't think outbursts are bound to hurt people. I just think this was a bad gamble and I don't see many of his associates coming to his defense. Since he has apologized, it's also put a strategic problem in place for the rest of the GOP in how they address the President.

This only hurt the GOP.
K
O

1 Reply

Was this Wilson guy really speaking for many people, unbeknownst to him? Does the President have such a deep credibility gap that even in the sancrosanct halls of Congress someone loses his decorum?

In effect, with the loss of decorum at the Town Hall meetings, and now this, perhaps someone should wonder whether a revised health care system will go smoothly upon implementation?

Perhaps, the misjudgement is that many Americans do not have a European mindset. I believe the European mindset might be the result of devastation of life and property and infrastucture, over the span of two world wars. After that experience, they might be quite more docile, than Americans, at accepting social programs that seems too constrictive, with too much largess, for the taste of many?

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

This only hurt the GOP.

Indeed, as TIME said, it was a "gift".

Quote:

At the moment Wilson exploded, the outburst seemed like an assault on the President. Soon afterward, it was clear that it had been a gift. Wilson had, in an emotional expression, proven Obama's point: the summer of town halls had been less a discussion than a circus, a forum where misinformation was vindicated by passion, where disrespect was elevated to a virtue. Now the circus had come inside Congress.

He picked not only bad form, but bad substance. His claim was demonstrably false. It was a huge gift.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Was this Wilson guy really speaking for many people, unbeknownst to him?

Well, he's a representative from South Carolina. The fact that he speaks for many people should "be knownst" to him.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Of course he was speaking for many people. He was speaking for the tea baggers.

About 30% of Americans seem to have a deep seated hatred of President Obama that is almost certainly unshakable. Not too surprisingly, these people didn't vote for Obama.

But, this is how Democracy works. Obama was very clear that he wanted to improve our society through social programs-- including a reform of health care. Americans knew this before we voted for the guy-- and yet we elected him. The idea that a loud obnoxious minority should be allowed to stop the will of the majority of Americans is ludicrous.

Of course the guy has a right to his opinion. It is just when he expresses it in such an obnoxious, inappropriate way, it is understandable that this will bother most of us.

The obvious consequence is that this guy (and the people he is speaking for) will pay politically.

Justice is served.

3 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Was this Wilson guy really speaking for many people, unbeknownst to him?

Well, he's a representative from South Carolina. The fact that he speaks for many people should "be knownst" to him.

I am not sure if one can always be "be knownst"? I have had the odd feeling sometimes that a ventriloquist is speaking through me, I being a dummy not made of wood.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

About 30% of Americans seem to have a deep seated hatred of President Obama that is almost certainly unshakable. Not too surprisingly, these people didn't vote for Obama.

I believe that "deep seated hatred" you mention above might actually be in many cases just great mistrust. It might be hard for some people to really trust a President that does not have, on both sides, generations of family in this country? Or, based on his church affiliation for 20 years? Or, for his helping a community, as an organizer, that was only Black? Or for his comments to Joe the Plumber on spreading the wealth around?

All in all, he might represent to a goodly number of people a President that has a very different agenda. That does not engender hate, that may engender mistrust.

I do not hate people, but do you think I trust everyone? Any mistrust can just be that I am not a trusting person towards those that do not share my small world. I think there are many mistrustful people towards our President, since he too is a very different type of President, totally aside from his race.

1 Reply

Quote:

He picked not only bad form, but bad substance. His claim was demonstrably false. It was a huge gift.

This about sums it up nicely.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

About 30% of Americans seem to have a deep seated hatred of President Obama that is almost certainly unshakable. Not too surprisingly, these people didn't vote for Obama.

I think 30% is way too high of a made up statistic.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I don't care if you, or they, or anyone else hates or mistrusts the president. This seems like a useless distinction.

It is just that they are a minority.

The American people have sent Obama to the White House and we have elected a majority of Democrats in Congress. This was our right and you have to deal with it (and yes, the same was true for me in the 8 years of Bush).

Now listen carefully, because is this a key point. I don't care if Joe Wilson, or Glen Beck or the Tea Baggers are loud and obnoxious. In fact I kind of like it, having these insane clowns on national TV helps my side quite a bit. I never cheered when people on my side acted like this-- in fact the Bush=Hitler references (which by the way were no where near as prominent as the Obama ones) made me cringe.

We do have the right to use these antics for our political gain or our amusement. After all, it is not our fault that the right is so crazy.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

I think 30% is way too high of a made up statistic.

I was feeling generous.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

We do have the right to use these antics for our political gain or our amusement. After all, it is not our fault that the right is so crazy.

Does that mean when universal health care with full mental health coverage is implemented we won't be as amused?

I feel I should oppose Obama's plan just so I can be at fault for the right being crazy.

1 Reply

@parados,

It is technically possible to be crazy without opposing Obama's plan.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

I being a dummy not made of wood.

You finally got something right!

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I don't care if you, or they, or anyone else hates or mistrusts the president. This seems like a useless distinction.

No, it is a very important distinction between hate and mistrust. One of the differences is that those that might hate are easy to debunk, since much hate is illogical many times. However, those that only mistrust are harder to debunk, since mistrust is a very logical emotion many times.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

But, this is how Democracy works. Obama was very clear that he wanted to improve our society through social programs-- including a reform of health care. Americans knew this before we voted for the guy-- and yet we elected him. The idea that a loud obnoxious minority should be allowed to stop the will of the majority of Americans is ludicrous.

It might be wishful thinking that the majority that elected him are also all for the reform of health care. The "will of the majority of Americans" may not be behind the health care reform; especially because many young people, that voted for Obama, might not all want to be forced into paying insurance premiums while they are young.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

I guess that means Joe Wilson "hates" since his "liar" comment was easy to debunk.

NEXT.....

0 Replies

My God... What An Idiot...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know