This video was sent to me by a family member, and I am simply speechless:
It said to pass this on, who am I to disobey?
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
It seems so ridiculous to me that certain Americans still think their fighting Communism, The media did their job a bit too well.
Communism = Socialism. Duh.
Thanks to Faux News.
Socialism is just Communism in a suit.
I thought it was a baggy sweatshirt.
Really, it’s more like a cable-knit sweater-vest I think.
You forgot the continuation…
Communism = Socialism = Marxism = Facism
;-)
This video seems more about images than what’s actually behind the images. Case in point: They want to take America back. But did they ever stop and think why they lost it in the first place? Most likely not.
I wonder where they want to take it back to. 1910?
My guess would be the dark ages.
1910 wouldn’t be too bad actually. It was before everyone decided that religion should be an intrinsic part of this nation and before the IRS had their powers essentially written into the constitution. Still it saddens me that so many people could be whipped into a frenzy by a lunatic.
So, eight years of unrestricted spending under Dubya, not even including the costs of our two wars in the budgets, yet NOW these people are upset that their tax monies may be going to help other Americans not quite so fortunate.
Is there a term for accusing the “other side” of possessing the very qualities you yourself express?
A significant majority of this population appears to be suffering a dire case of rectocranial impaction.
“Projection”
Hypocrisy.
I agree, the want again some president that kills his own people by starting a war and send thelm to a war. A president that does not want to take care of the poor and a president that supports torturing people. And a prersident that created this financial crisis in the first place. Just like Bush.
An all because he is not a believer?
Obama is a believer, he’s just not their kind of believer. Doesn’t hate the gay enough.
To be fair, this happens on all sides of the political spectrum everywhere in the world. When people are dissatisfied with something, they blame the current government and disregard the fact that the root causes can often be traced back many years through many different governments.
“Is there a term for accusing the “other side” of possessing the very qualities you yourself express?”
Yes — “Republican”.
These fuckers do it all the time, it’s #1 in the playbook. They had an AWOL war deserter running in 2004, so they attacked Kerry for his military service. Then they had McCain who was born outside the US and Palin who had shady ties to domestic terrorism through her husband, so they claimed both things about Obama.
Get people applying your weakness to the other side, so if they counter with the truth it looks like they ‘stole’ your claim.
It’s a common tactic, actually, employed by smart strategists of all stripes. Make your opponent’s strength into a weakness (Kerry’s war record). Deflect criticism with tu quoque arguments.
The McCain being-born-in-the-Panama-zone thing wasn’t going to be an issue either way.
Palin’s husband has connections to the Alaska Independence Party, who are hardly “domestic terrorists”. And his ties were overt, not shady. Don’t become the thing that you hate.
” Palin’s husband has connections to the Alaska Independence Party, who are hardly “domestic terrorists”. And his ties were overt, not shady. Don’t become the thing that you hate. ”
mark: If any democrat had ties to people wanting to secede from the US I don’t think they get elected to anything.
mark:
If any democrat had ties to people wanting to secede from the US I don’t think they get elected to anything.
IOKIYAR: “It’s OK if you are Republican.”
The guy who is Clearly Not A Republican But Defends Every Republican Talking Point told me so.
You clearly have never heard of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement (and the support they get from the Democratic portions of the Hawaiian delegation to Congress).
Wow, I guess one black man at a tea party protest means most of those people aren’t racists.
These people aren’t racists the same way they hate the “sin” of homosexuality but love the sinner.
They hate the sin of being black, but love the black man!
(women are of no importance)
Seemed pretty innocuous to me. This guy (and many others) don’t like what direction policy is going, and so they exhort people who think like them to vote for a new direction in 2010. Sure, their working definition of socialism is a little off, but I bet you most Americans on any side of the spectrum couldn’t define socialism effectively.
He’s not suggesting violence or anything else untoward. The video celebrates peaceful protest and the ballot box.
What’s the problem?
No problem really, it’s more amusing than anything else.
“Seemed pretty innocuous to me. This guy (and many others) don’t like what direction policy is going, and so they exhort people who think like them to vote for a new direction in 2010. Sure, their working definition of socialism is a little off, but I bet you most Americans on any side of the spectrum couldn’t define socialism effectively. He’s not suggesting violence or anything else untoward. The video celebrates peaceful protest and the ballot box. What’s the problem?”
Twofold:
1) Their complaints are idiotic and unfounded. Most of the things being complained about in this video were worse under Bush. It’s complete partisan hackery.
2) Learn how to write a goddamn song parody! The singer just basically gives up on rhyming halfway through the song and starts giving talking points that don’t even fit the meter.
Also, you’re engaging in something that’s a little naive, which is ascribing their amorphous definition socialism to simple ignorance. It’s not ignorance, it’s intentional: red-baiting, straight out of McCarthy. The people who astroturf these kinds of videos don’t really think Obama is a socialist, in any meaningful sense of the term; it’s just a code word for “guy who is not like us”, it’s something to get people scared of the opposition. It’s a drop of blood in the shark tank. It would be hard to think of a candidate more corporate friendly and anti-socialist than Obama.
That’s why arguing policy with these insane zealots is pointless, because they don’t care about policy. They will literally adopt any position that the current candidate from their political sports team is supporting, as long as they continue to annoy and piss off the other sports team (liberals) that they hate. They supported Bush who doled out more welfare to corporations than Obama could dream of dishing out to poor people in 8 years.
It works in sort of the same way that “Christians” will support anyone who puts on the pageantry of being a Christian, whether they actually follow what’s in the Bible or not.
That’s why arguing policy with
these insane zealotspartisans is pointless…FTFY. This is welcome to politics the hard way, and the vast majority of it (including all the behaviors you’ve described) is older than dirt. Partisanship has never yielded to much sense.
Given that, I’m still having a hard time seeing the problem…as in, something I should bemoan and/or get excited about.
he butchered a great song with insufferably trite, hysterical, political lyrics, that’s the problem.
His aesthetic sins are indeed monstrous!
Darnit, Elemenope, why do you have to be so “reasoned” and “sane” and “possessing human decency and an ability to see other points of view”?
It’s such a buzzkill! Just join us in hating people, fer crying out loud!
If Obama’s taking away our free speech, what’s this then?
Also, you can’t get rid of Obama in 2010. He’s here until at least 2012.
Go easy on them, those are big numbers.
Actually Bush took away free speech. Many examples like a photogtapher taking a picture of a bird nearly ends in jail because they think that he is a terrorist.
But they want to have someone like Bush again? Wierd?
I think they meant the mid-term elections.
But anyway, if they keep letting Sarah Palin and other crazy lunatics like the people in this video drive the party off the cliff, 2010 might be the last election the Republicans have as a major party. I am all in favor of these videos because it shows how crazy they are getting.
Its funny, after a presidency like Bush’s, if the next president is a conservative or dare I say – Sarah Palin – Liberals/independents will turn out in the MILLIONS to protest and rally.
I love the picture at 3.08 with the black man with the afro, and a blindfold on labeled “liberalism”. It reminds my of an old white evangelical lawmaker with a blindfold on with “faith” written on it.
Silly religious politicians
They are determined, I gotta give’em credit, even if it isn’t based on truth and facts.
This depresses me.
So many of these people are flat out ignorant. They don’t know what they’re opposing, they don’t know why they’re upset, they don’t know anything at all. Yet, they’re up in arms crying about how they want their country back, when they never lost it in the first place. Nothing has changed since Obama has taken office, he hasn’t been able TO change anything because he’s done the best he can to keep this country United.
Obama is doeing a great jobs according to teh rest of the world. The world repsects him only in the US not.
He inherited the worst economics crisis created by Bush.
He has to manage the mess of torure and Guantamano bay created by Bush.
He has to resolve the negative view of the rest of teh world to the US. The world hates the US and laughs about the joke called Creationists and Palin. But Obame is restoring the trust of the rest of the world and people in other countries start to respect the Amercian people more and more beucause of his work.
He is doing a great jobs, but his work gest sabotaged too much by his own people.
One negative remark about Obama.
Europe is flooded with muslims now and they want the girls in school to have this vail on. Many countries are now forbidding to have these girls to have anything on their head in school, France, Belgium,…. in order to get western life a bit back bcecause the muslim people in Europe do refuse to integrate. Obame should take firm positions otherwise he will end up with these thousands of burning cars set to fire by muslims in Paris a few years ago.
Do I have to be “that guy” and point out that Guantanamo Bay is still open for business, the War in Afghanistan is still killing strong, and the Obama administration is attempting to make retroactively legal what Bush did illegally with pre-judicial detention (because having a law that says it’s OK makes it OK…)?
While bailing out corporations and banks who have already shown themselves to be criminally irresponsible, and buying up literally brain-busting quantities of junk assets with the credit of the US government?
Don’t get me wrong, Obama is great for American PR. He is more generally respectable than his predecessor simply because he doesn’t come off as an arrogant smarmy pr*ck, and that’s a big step in the right direction. But me, I like to judge on tangible progress as well, and in that arena he has been weak.
Agreed.
I wonder what gave anybody the idea that this administration or Congress was in any way restricting free speech over any past government. I literally cannot come up with a single policy that could be referring to. Under Bush, sure, I could see where people were coming from, at least regarding wiretapping (although that’s really an invasion of privacy, not free speech), and the absurd new airport security (although that’s probably not his fault, and it’s only a very limited area). But Obama has done absolutely nothing that would restrict free speech.
With regard to the other Michael above, wondering what free speech Obama has taken away (or at least could be remotely linked with the removal of), I would hazard a guess that they are upset that on occasion random outbursts of hatred against him without any discernible reason have been labelled ‘racism’ by the liberal media. They consider it their right to have no basis on which to base their vehement anger at the man’s existence, and for people to exercise their right to criticise these outbursts is the latter impinging on the free speech of the former, which of course is the only free speech that matters.
Or, in short, they want their right to hate brown people back.
You’d guess wrong. The main conservative complaint about free speech has been campaign finance laws, and the ability (currently highly attenuated by law) for groups and corporations to spend money to publish media in support or against a candidate or party.
For what it’s worth, I basically agree with them.
I don’t think corporations should be able to spend money in support of candidates. If you have a huge corporation in a small town they can control that towns politics that ain’t cool from my perspective.
In an actual small town, everyone knows everyone. What effect is corporate money going to have? It makes more sense to have that concern where the majority of voters know nothing about the candidate prior to the campaign season.
I just have to disagree, if the folks who run a particular corporation want to spend their personal money on elections fine. But corporations no, I see to much damage being done to small towns and underrepresented populations.
Just think about some of the strip mining companies in west virginia that have destroyed entire communities and poisoned their water supply. Some of these operations where allowed to continue in spite of protest from residents in those communities. I think situations like this demonstrate clearly why corporations shouldn’t be allowed to contribute money to elected officials.
Or for a better example, what if the tobacco and cigarette companies had been allowed to donate as much money as they wanted to to politicians.
If you get a chance to respond please keep in mind that tobacco industry suppressed info about how much cigarettes where killing people and how addictive nicotine was. Please keep in mind that they hired “experts ” to debunk proven science that was indicating the dangers and tobacco and nicotine.
I concur. Individual voices could not compete with corporation’s huge financial leverage. Giving them that power seems contradictory to free-speech and individual rights to me. Just another step towards making individual voices smaller, less significant.
Just think about some of the strip mining companies in west virginia that have destroyed entire communities and poisoned their water supply. Some of these operations where allowed to continue in spite of protest from residents in those communities. I think situations like this demonstrate clearly why corporations shouldn’t be allowed to contribute money to elected officials.
Or, perhaps, the issue is more complicated than it seems on the surface. If companies were “poisoning the water supply”, then it should be easy to run against them, and there are certainly precious few impediments to running for local office. Being against “killing our children” ought to be a winning platform. And yet…perhaps people in the area depend for their livelihood on the mines being placed near their community, and perhaps a majority of the voting townspeople are workers or family of workers in those mines, and perhaps people, instead of being dupes of corporate PR, are instead voting for their rational economic interest.
What about the tobacco industry? Should they have been able to donate unlimited amounts of money back in the Day?
Do you really believe the tobacco industry who caused peoples deaths by denying/suppressing and lying about the threat of tobacco wouldn’t have supported corrupt politicians to push their interest?
Torts and crimes are what the judicial system is for. IIRC, tobacco collectively got spanked for a judgment the size of which would have made Bill Gates micturate his drawers, for doing precisely what you claim.
You don’t look to legislators for justice; that is not their job. You look to them for policy.
” tobacco collectively got spanked for a judgment the size of which would have made Bill Gates micturate his drawers, for doing precisely what you claim. ”
mark: They got spanked after thousands of people lost their lives due to them lying about the dangers cigarettes on peoples health. For that reason I don’t think they should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to elections. Here are some statements by the tobacco industry execs denying the dangers of cigarettes when testifying to congress back in 94.
REP. WYDEN: Let me begin my questioning on whether or not nicotine is addictive. Let me ask you first, and I’d like to just go down the row, whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. I heard virtually all of you touch on it. Yes or no, do you believe nicotine is not addictive?
MR. CAMPBELL (President of Philip Morris U.S.A.).
I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes.
REP. WYDEN: Mr. Johnston?
MR. JAMES JOHNSTON (Chairman and CEO of RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company). Mr. Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no intoxication.
REP. WYDEN: We’ll take that as a “no.” Again, time is short. I think that each of you believe that nicotine is not addictive. We would just like to have this for the record.
MR. TADDEO (President of U.S. Tobacco).
I don’t believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.
MR. TISCH (Chairman and CEO of Lorillard Tobacco Company).
I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. HORRIGAN (Chairman and CEO of Liggett Group).
I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. SANDEFUR (Chairman and CEO of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company).
I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. DONALD JOHNSTON (President and CEO of American Tobacco Company).
And I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive.
mark: They got spanked after thousands of people lost their lives due to them lying about the dangers cigarettes on peoples health. For that reason I don’t think they should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to elections.
Wow. WOW! First you trample all over the right for white Christian uneducated morons to exercise their freedom to be bigots, and now you want to trample over the rights of corporations to rig elections so that they can exercise their freedom to more easily make money from killing people?
What kind of American are you, markbey?!?! Don’t you know that everyone is exactly the same and everyone’s beliefs are equal in validity?
They got spanked after thousands of people lost their lives due to them lying about the dangers cigarettes on peoples health. For that reason I don’t think they should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to elections.
You see, what we do to liars, is we take away their right to express themselves.
What?
And not to mention they got caught out on that lie and paid through the nose. What is your point, that bad people shouldn’t have the ability to do what good people can do?
Killing people is ok as long as you pay some money?
Killing people is ok as long as you pay some money?
Of course not. How could you get that from what I wrote?
“You see, what we do to liars, is we take away their right to express themselves.”
mark: Enope I don’t understand why the execs of corps cant just use their private money to contribute to elections instead of company money.
Because that is also highly restricted. The campaign finance laws are set up in such a way that both personal and corporate giving are under (very low) caps.
mark: Enope I don’t understand why the execs of corps cant just use their private money to contribute to elections instead of company money.
Even that is no good, because the execs of corporations are still afforded more ability to influence elections than working stiffs who don’t have the resources to go play golf with John McCain on a Sunday morning and chat with him.
Campaign finance reform, and complete public financing of elections, is one good solution. Then no one (legally) has the ability to influence the election with money, we all pay into it the same and all candidates get an identical stipend to spend how they want to promote themselves.
Even that is no good, because the execs of corporations are still afforded more ability to influence elections than working stiffs who don’t have the resources to go play golf with John McCain on a Sunday morning and chat with him.
The real problem is that people feel comfortable with voting for a guy they don’t have access to, which is a direct result of two simple factors:
1. The size of the country (which unfortunately, we can’t do much about)
2. Duverger’s Law, which is a consequence of a ballot system (which we could do something about)
Instead of small multiparty systems serving regional interests to the federal whole, we have a duopoly of technocrats.
None of which is solved by public election funding. While we’re on that subject, the notion sounds good until you realize that there are precious few criteria for qualifying to run for most offices. And hence, hundreds upon hundreds of candidates for each national position alone. Who chooses who gets money from the public pot and who is left out in the cold?
I have to agree here with Elemenope that a public election fund wouldn’t work as well as you might think. I don’t think there is an easy option to the problem of campaign financing. I do think it is a big mistake for corporations to donate in large sums but then again I don’t think they should have the same rights I have.
Should there be a criteria for candidates to run for office? Who would set them? If you did make a public election fund what would be the limits to the number of candidates allowed per election? Would a candidate be allowed to use their personnel funds in an election? What kind of limits would you put on each level of government? Should a city counsel candidate get the same amount as some one running for mayor? Should either of these get as much as someone running for a state seat? Yeah I also at one time thought a public fund would be a good idea but then I started running into these questions.
WhoawhowhoaWHOA, there! I very very strongly disagree with you there, El.
Corporate apologetics is always where I start getting mad at libertarians. The modern large-capitalization, publicly traded, internationally held mega-corporation already has vastly too much influence on the world.
I have a number of nasty metaphors for these organizations, but I’ll just say for now that I think they need their influence curtailed and checked as often and as forcefully as possible.
We’re actually far closer on this that you think. I’m against tort reform (which would limit the liability of corporations to no good end), and for stronger personnel barriers between regulatory agencies and corporate employees/executives (to avoid the revolving door). Rent seeking by corporations is a primary evil of our system, and I am certainly against it in all its forms.
But I don’t think a good or effective way to curtail the power of corporations is campaign finance reform, because of its less-than-salutary effects on free speech, politics, individual behavior, and its concomitant reduction of the abilities and influence of other organizations (like unions) that actually might make an effective counterweight to corporations, had they a chance.
I see your point on many of your above statements, but I still disagree re: campaign finance reform.
Money is not speech. It never has been, and never will be. Besides, neither a corporation nor a union should have a right to free speech, since they are not people. People have brains with emotional and moral mechanisms.
Individual people should be relatively unrestricted re: donating to candidates, but groups are different, be they a business corp., a labor union, a church, or any other “single issue group” like the NRA or Sierra Club. A group is assembled for some single purpose. Hence, all money from that group, even without an explicit quid pro quo, is an attempt to buy influence on a single issue (or very small basket of issues).
Also, the biggest unions could never match the biggest corps in funding, because their resource pool is limited to the U.S. Corporations can draw from money raised from overseas, which should really have no influence in a domestic election.
Money is not speech, but all methods by which a person may reach their words further than the sound of their voice certainly require it. The press is only free to the man who owns the press, or so the saying goes.
Personally, I go back and forth on corporate personhood. On one hand, the empirical evidence has shown it to be essential for the birth and continued growth of economy and technology in the modern age…on the other hand, it has odd legal consequences due to the way courts have chosen to apply the 14th amendment. One positive consequence of corporate personhood is that if you ever have to sue one, one name (and set of assets) goes on the defendant ledger, making things not only simpler but also the resulting pockets deeper.
Also, the biggest unions could never match the biggest corps in funding, because their resource pool is limited to the U.S. Corporations can draw from money raised from overseas, which should really have no influence in a domestic election.
A good point, though unions (at least used to) have the power of moral suasion and wide popular support, which corporations in general do not have.
Okay, we are closer to agreement than I originally thought, especially if you can acknowledge the flaws in applying the 14th amendment to corporate “persons”.
RE: suing a corporation -The “resulting deeper pockets” you refer to are also used to hire and equip the best fleet of lawyers, lobbyists, and PR guys available anywhere, to make sure you don’t actually win. Court costs alone are a prohibitive expense for many individuals, which means that most people will never even seek justice. Much of the money from those “deep pockets” goes to individuals in pre-trial arbitration, in exchange for silence on the part of the victim of corporate wrongdoing, which prevents an accurate public perception of the harm done by a corporation.
I have been focusing solely on our little subthread, but it looks like you are engaged in heated discussions on a number of other fronts as well.
Let me just reiterate how much respect I have for you as a thinker and communicator. If anyone could convince me I’m wrong about this, it would likely be you. You are a TRULY “fair and balanced” source.
The “resulting deeper pockets” you refer to are also used to hire and equip the best fleet of lawyers, lobbyists, and PR guys available anywhere, to make sure you don’t actually win. Court costs alone are a prohibitive expense for many individuals, which means that most people will never even seek justice. Much of the money from those “deep pockets” goes to individuals in pre-trial arbitration, in exchange for silence on the part of the victim of corporate wrongdoing, which prevents an accurate public perception of the harm done by a corporation.
All good points. I’d say that in no system would David have much chance against Goliath, and it is a testament to our system that Goliath gets pimp-slapped more than occasionally. The producer/consumer legal relationship has always been more dicey than the producer/employee relationship, because of two reasons. One, the second relationship (used to be) underwritten by organized labor, which had some heft to throw around and whose power corporations were bound to respect. Consumers have no such “union”. Two, embedded deep in our law tradition is caveat emptor, and so individual harms caused by a product are not a legal issue unless one can show the company was negligent (or deceptive) in some way in its production and distribution. This is the way it has to be, as many of the products that people desire to purchase are inherently dangerous (cars, band saws, cigarettes, big macs) and even when used properly can lead to injury.
Third-party arbitration (as it was originally conceived) was a way to handle claims without the expense to either party for a trial; lately, some companies have been abusing arbitration rules in some states by selecting the arbitration company by contract (rather than it being true third-party arbitration), and that shouldn’t be allowed. Another mechanism, designed to address torts that have a social scope, is the class action, which though imperfect allows many individual claimants to band together resources in order to press a case.
I have been focusing solely on our little subthread, but it looks like you are engaged in heated discussions on a number of other fronts as well.
LOL. That 3D fellow is really quite offended by me. :)
Let me just reiterate how much respect I have for you as a thinker and communicator. If anyone could convince me I’m wrong about this, it would likely be you.
And I you. It is always a pleasure to spar about these issues with someone articulate and intelligent.
You are a TRULY “fair and balanced” source.
Oh hell no I’m not. I try to be fair to “the other side”, but I am far from a balanced source. In my experience, when someone claims to be a balanced or neutral source, it is the first clue that they are very not. :)
Interestingly, there is a case coming before the supreme court right now (don’t remember the actual days, but it’s this week or last) about campaign finance/free speech.
I was rather chilled by the picture of several nooses, one of which was labeled ‘doctors,’ and another ‘insurance companies.’ What, instead of health care reform they want to do away with health care altogether? Preferably by violent lynching? I know it’s visual hyperbole, but it’s still a disturbing piece of propaganda.
If it is the same one I read about, the push is to allow corporations the same rights to express themselves, to support or speak out against a candidate as individual citizens have. So, the corporation is essentially a citizen with the same rights. Reportedly, Hilary stopped a corporation from runing a campaign against her during the primaries based on the fact the corporation had no right to do so. The Rep want to change it so it is possible. Seems to me they are cutting their nose off in spite of their face… and will create a monster.
hmmmm…. If they do, I wonder if a corporation, then, could run for a political office too?
They kept showing pictures and signs about free speech. Am I wrong, or did Dubya not do more to infringe upon the freedom of speech than any other president in recent history? This video was nothing but a plea to emotions; the least reliable resource when it comes to making intelligent decisions.
my mom always used to refer to people that didn’t agree with her as communists. Didn’t matter who they were – they were closet communists.
“This depresses me.
So many of these people are flat out ignorant. They don’t know what they’re opposing, they don’t know why they’re upset, they don’t know anything at all. Yet, they’re up in arms crying about how they want their country back, when they never lost it in the first place. Nothing has changed since Obama has taken office, he hasn’t been able TO change anything because he’s done the best he can to keep this country United.”
Exactly.
They make themselves out to be anarchists but the truth is most neocons have a burning desire for a Theocracy.
Fascism in the 21st century.
While it may well be true, I am equally bothered by the assumption that “these people” must necessarily be ignorant of the situation, policies, and politics at issue. It’s like the assumption is if you don’t agree with the proposals you must be a simpleton or a rube.
Isn’t that just a tad arrogant?
In my experience, no side of the political spectrum has the market cornered on sense, nor a peculiar proclivity to think consequences through with clarity.
Bull. When these people who’ve been showing up at Tea Parties and other miscellaneous anti-Obama nonsense events have been interviewed, they’ve shown a stunning lack of intelligence or even a minimal grasp of the situation. They spout one-liners that have been spouted by other people–and I suppose they think that if enough people are spouting the same thing, and if Glenn Beck has reinforced the delusion, it must be true. It certainly isn’t arrogant to call these people what they are: morons. And I don’t call them morons because they don’t agree with me; I call them morons (and deluded, ignorant, knee-jerk, jerks, borderline racists, imbeciles, and congenitally stupid) because their arguments are moronic (and deluded, ignorant, knee-jerk, racist, imbecilic, and stupid).
They interviewed everyone? Hot damn.
And let’s not pretend to ourselves that the news was conducting a scientific random sample. They are fishing for soundbites, and things that fit in the narrative. As Neil Postman (I think correctly) pointed out, TV is not the proper format for nuanced discussion, because its purpose is generating and maintaining spectacle, and news orgs are under absolutely no delusions about that fact.
But if you think they’re *all* idiots, nothing I say is going to dissuade you.
Can we agree that all the people who made this song possible are idiots? Same with the people who carry signs saying Obama is both a socialist and a Nazi?
Confused and angry, certainly. Idiots, quite possibly. But as I said earlier, most Americans (of any political stripe) would fail a quiz on political terms and ideologies. If I had a nickel for every time a conservative misused “socialist” or a liberal misused “fascist” I’d be a very wealthy guy. Doesn’t mean that their underlying concerns (whatever they happen to be), are *necessarily* invalid.
But instead of attempting to address why these people are angry, most seem content to simply make fun of them. Assuming that people are pissed off simply because they are rubes is a good way to miss the point.
But if you think they’re *all* idiots, nothing I say is going to dissuade you.
Again, bull. Show me someone from these Tea Parties/Town Halls who’ve been hollering and freaking out about Obama saying something coherent and, as Korny put it, “based on facts.”
Way to prove the point. A small fraction of people “holler”. Those are the ones you are going to hear on TV. You can’t holler a reasoned discourse, after all.
Saw this on the Beatitude’s blog and thought it was relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljFKK7XvsCs&feature=player_embedded#t=283
The ignorance is astounding, and IMO, representative quite a few people in the Republican constituency.
While it may well be true, I am equally bothered by the assumption that “these people” must necessarily be ignorant of the situation, policies, and politics at issue. It’s like the assumption is if you don’t agree with the proposals you must be a simpleton or a rube.
HAHAHAHA!
In other words: “While it may be true that they’re idiots, I’m bothered by the fact that people call them idiots.” This is what is wrong with our political discourse in the US — we have come to a point where anything you say or do in defense of horrible things like torture, racism and homophobia is fine, but if you say something in an uncivil tone, you’re over the line buddy.
It’s not a matter of agree or disagree. It’s that they are saying stupid things that have no basis in reality. Stupid ideas need to be called out on their stupidity before they germinate.
Isn’t that just a tad arrogant?
Yeah guys! Stop picking on the poor oppressed white Christian male Republican base, trying to take away their right to be racists, deny healthcare to poor people, and spread falsehood-filled propaganda by butchering Sinatra classics.
Big arrogant meanies!
Look at those people there.
They believe ‘x’.
They are clearly also idiots.
Therefore, ‘x’ is wrong.
And, anyone who would support or believe ‘x’ is an idiot.
——
The argument of the general form shown above is what I am objecting to. It’s riddled with cognitive and logical errors, and is obnoxious besides. A whole helluva lot of people seem to use this argument form or some implicit variation, and it’s a bad habit to get into.
Or rather
Look at those people there.
They believe ‘x’.
‘x’ is demonstrably wrong according to the evidence.
Therefore, these people are clearly idiots.
Ok, turn the argument around.
Has anybody, anywhere, read anything, seen anything, heard anything that is criticising Obama/his policies from the republican side of the argument that:
a) makes sense
b) is based on facts
I’m honestly curious.
The most substantive and valid criticisms I have seen against Obama have been from the left. Some of them were raised by the resident Republican Concern Troll — Obama hasn’t yet discontinued or tacitly endorsed some of Bush’s policies.
Unlike the ridiculous tripe in this video, that’s a criticism that at least is grounded in reality. Although, I still think it’s misplaced because this is what the guy sold himself as, and it’s what got him elected. He’s a glacial change kinda guy, not a storm the Bastille guy. He believes in getting everybody on board to get his shit done. So judging the guy by measuring how much he has cleaned up of the colossal clusterfuck that was dumped in his lap by 6 years of unimpeded Republi-tard rule, after 8 months, is kinda stupid, to me.
Some of them were raised by the resident Republican Concern Troll
If you are referring to me, you fail party identification. I am no Republican.
So Rebublicans are critcising Obama for not fixing things that Republicans broke in the first place… And thats the best criticism they can throw at him thats actually logical?
Am I understanding this right? I admit to being a bystander in this (I’m from New Zealand and we’re really only interested in how much you’ll pay for our lamb and beef). To us the word “Republican” means “someone who wants to take the Union jack off the NZ flag” and “major political strife” means “debate about how much money our members of parliament fritter away”.
You make a valid point. I have yet to see a cogent argument posited by the right regarding Obama’s policies. Every single thing I’ve seen has been an appeal to emotion based on blatant dishonesty.
Or rather
Look at those people there.
They believe ‘x’.
‘x’ is demonstrably wrong according to the evidence.
Therefore, these people are clearly idiots.
Actually, while I agree in general, I would make one little tweak there. It’s worse than being “demonstrably wrong”. You can be demonstrably wrong, and still be debating in good faith. That’s what politics is about, at its best. For example I don’t agree with a lot of Obama’s policies but I think he has the best interests of the nation in mind.
On the other hand, the people in this video and the teabagging morons in general are insane, delusional, increasingly violent fuckwads. We can debate back and forth about these monstrous people vs. “real” conservatives, Barry Goldwater conservatives, whatever. The bottom line is no such thing as a “real conservative” exists in 2009 in any numbers to be worth talking about. You might as well debate about Unicorn Republicans. They just aren’t there.
They embraced the most lunatic fringe of the country, in the aftermath of 9/11, and ran with it — and now this is what they got. Morons with guns and no teeth showing up with half-assed ideas about health care and racist placards and nooses. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.
So Rebublicans are critcising Obama for not fixing things that Republicans broke in the first place… And thats the best criticism they can throw at him thats actually logical? Am I understanding this right?
Well, for some context, you should realize that while they were running around breaking everything, they were saying Democrats were breaking it, and then simultaneously saying it wasn’t broken and everything was awesome. So you can get an idea of how much they value consistency and logic.
A major problem in this country is the press. Because it’s 100% profit-driven, they want as big an audience as possible, so they’re scared to offend either side. So everything gets this “tinge” (as you’re seeing in the Concern Troll posts here) where it’s like “aww, all politicians are bad, stop putting one side over the other, they are exactly equal and voting is pointless” — classical, proudly ignorant, know-nothing, political apathy — instead of substantively criticizing where criticism is deserved.
Requiring an IQ test to vote is sounding good right about now.
Written by whom?
Administered by whom?
I’m not for an IQ test for voters. I’d rather just educate the voters so you less (allegedly) completely misinformed bullshit like in this video.
How does one “educate the voters”?
By starting with public education that has integrity, not neo-theocrat bullsh*t (as per our convo yesterday).
How do you get integrity into public schools? The same people who don’t know jack crap about what’s going on in politics will be the ones voting for the school reform, or at least raising hell about any proposed changes that they miserably fail to understand.
I should add that I’m in total agreement with you though. I’d love to see significant changes in our public ed system. I have kids in public schools. My wife and I know we’ll have to do a fair bit of educating ourselves.
Notice they all use scare tactics and disinformation.
Why does he keep talking about free speech? I haven’t noticed anybody’s right to free speech or assembly being taken away. I mean they got to march yesterday, right? FOX News is still on the air, right? Also, nice how he shows that album cover of Ronald Reagan talking about MEDICARE as “Socialized Medicine”. Look I understand if you disagree with the way the country’s going. That’s OK. But if you’re going to disagree with it and attempt to speak out about it, you might want to get your facts straight. Duh.
Oh and one last thing, I like how at the start of the video he lists himself as a “Proud Black Concervative” uh hey buddy it’s spelled “conServative”.
Now go home and put your tinfoil hat back on & turn on Glenn Beck.
^lol
the amazing thing is the speechwriter is black. i am sure the republicans have and will continue to represent him very well.
I really love the fact that for a party who’s mouthpieces scream and yell about a “culture of victimization”, they really know how to play victim. Christians screaming about being persecuted, protesters claiming the loss of free speech, the media is out to get us. It would be funny if it didn’t seem to work.
I knew it was going to be bad as soon as the opening graphic appeared with “conservative” spelled wrong.
But wow, a black man using nooses for symbolism. We’ve come a long way since the Jim Crow days. I just can’t figure out how he seems to feel he’s lost freedom of speech.
“HAHAHAHA!
In other words: “While it may be true that they’re idiots, I’m bothered by the fact that people call them idiots.” This is what is wrong with our political discourse in the US — we have come to a point where anything you say or do in defense of horrible things like torture, racism and homophobia is fine, but if you say something in an uncivil tone, you’re over the line buddy.
It’s not a matter of agree or disagree. It’s that they are saying stupid things that have no basis in reality. Stupid ideas need to be called out on their stupidity before they germinate.
Isn’t that just a tad arrogant?
Yeah guys! Stop picking on the poor oppressed white Christian male Republican base, trying to take away their right to be racists, deny healthcare to poor people, and spread falsehood-filled propaganda by butchering Sinatra classics.
Big arrogant meanies!”
Lol, I agree with you 100%
Political “correctness” is the reason all of this nonsense persists. The neocons are using what has always worked – propaganda that appeals to our most sinister and simple emotions – fear, anger, and distrust.
This country has really become a sad joke on so many levels. I’d go live in Europe if the exchange rate was better.
I would like to applaud Elemenope for the balance and fairness in his responses in this thread. I realize we are a mostly left-leaning crowd on this blog, but it still shames me to see people falling into the generalization game.
Politics are polarizing and most people have strong feelings about them. Both sides, in every election, use these strong feelings to their advantage. How is this video and different than all the Bush-hating videos that went around during the last administration? The bottom line is that its not.
Which is easier to get people motivated against a person or an idea, to present an argument in a balanced way sticking to only the facts, or to play on fears and illicit a purely emotional response? To deny that every side in the political arena uses the latter would be simplistic.
The sooner we realize that both Republicans and Democrats are alike, and often have valid reasons for believing one way or the other, the better off we will be. I realize that this is a lofty dream, but if we can get away from the vilifying and personal attacks that plague our political system, maybe rationality will rush into the void.
+1
e and fairness in his responses in this thread. I realize we are a mostly left-leaning crowd on this blog, but it still shames me to see people falling into the generalization game. Politics are polarizing and most people have strong feelings about them. Both sides, in every election, use these strong feelings to their advantage. How is this video and different than all the Bush-hating videos that went around during the last administration? The bottom line is that its not.
What “Bush hating videos” are you referring to? Post a specific video and we’ll weigh the merits of its argument against the cockamaimie bullshit in this video.
Again, you’re doing exactly what you claim you’re arguing against: lumping all anti-Bush Americans (80% of the country) into one basket. In reality, almost all of the country despised Bush. It wasn’t a partisan divide, he was universally loathed.
The sooner we realize that both Republicans and Democrats are alike, and often have valid reasons for believing one way or the other, the better off we will be. I realize that this is a lofty dream, but if we can get away from the vilifying and personal attacks that plague our political system, maybe rationality will rush into the void.
So platitudes from kindergarten about treating everybody equally and “everyone’s ideas are valid”, are more important than actually measuring the strength of people’s arguments? Pretending that everyone is making sense is more important than determining who is actually making sense.
Yeah, I’ll have to pass on that one.
“What “Bush hating videos” are you referring to? Post a specific video and we’ll weigh the merits of its argument against the cockamaimie bullshit in this video.”
Travis: I don’t have any specific videos in mind since I try to avoid such baseless forms of entertainment, but I’m guessing if you search “George Bush Idiot” on youtube you will get hundreds of examples…
“Again, you’re doing exactly what you claim you’re arguing against: lumping all anti-Bush Americans (80% of the country) into one basket. In reality, almost all of the country despised Bush. It wasn’t a partisan divide, he was universally loathed.”
Travis: I’m not lumping anyone into any category and it seems you missed the entire point of the post. Not liking Bush is not the same as vilifying the man, but maybe you want him to play the villain and that is the reason you read this post in a defensive light. All I’m saying is that these type of tactics are nothing new to either political side, and expressed my desire to get away from mud-slinging and get back to well-informed debate based upon facts. Anyone Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, Anarchist, or any other political bent, does themselves a huge disservice when they resort to tactics such as the video in this post.
“So platitudes from kindergarten about treating everybody equally and “everyone’s ideas are valid”, are more important than actually measuring the strength of people’s arguments? Pretending that everyone is making sense is more important than determining who is actually making sense.”
Travis: That is not at all what I said. All ideas are not valid, and should not be treated as though they are. I am merely saying that debate and contention should revolve around the ideas themselves and move away from resorting to personal attacks and lies.
“Travis: I don’t have any specific videos in mind since I try to avoid such baseless forms of entertainment, but I’m guessing if you search “George Bush Idiot” on youtube you will get hundreds of examples…”
OK – you made that claim with nothing to back it up. What else have you made up out of thin air?
And just because a video has the words “Bush” and “Idiot in it doesn’t mean it’s a “Bush hating video.” I don’t hate Bush. When I see a clip of him saying “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country,” I don’t feel hatred – but I do know he’s made idiotic, the likes of which in my life-time no other U.S. president has uttered.
Nothing to back it up? I did the search and got about 1400 videos. It looks like the majority are attempts to discredit him by making him look stupid.
Lets be clear. I am not defending George Bush, but I prefer when disagreement comes in the form of analyzing policy. It is the same when my religious friends ignorantly label Obama a socialist or referred to Ted Kennedy as nothing but a drunk.
You’re absolutely right, Travis. Many people succumb to this childish notion of equality. Not all opinions are deserving of respect. To treat them as such is exactly the kind of thing that perpetuates the stupidity that is religious faith.
Thanks, Travis, Iggy. :)
Yeah. Nope is my favorite devil’s advocate. :)
Travis, you make a good point, as polarization is at work here. The biggest difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama has been villified almost immediately upon being elected. Bush, while his election was contentious at best, didn’t have to contend with a TV news network and radio networks questioning his legitimacy and the other side simply refusing to work with him on anything (not that there weren’t those on the left who disliked him). Then after 9-11 he had the support of a vast majority of people 85+%, who wanted him to succeed. It wasn’t until Bush and his Party so obviously screwed up in Iraq that public support dropped. I myself voted for Bush in 2000, but by 2004 it became so obvious, despite my wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, that I could no longer support him. I know a lot of people that were in the same boat as I was. Obama didn’t even get into office when Rush Limbaugh immediately mad his infamous “I want him to fail” speech. It was obvious from the start that most on the right held this view as well, that their ideology trumps the well being of the country
The sad part is the majority of people I know who are against Obama have no idea what they are talking about. Sure, I know many well reasoned Libertarians and Conservatives who can give rational arguments against his policies and are dead set against government involvement in anything (without calling him a Nazi or Joe Stalin), but the majority of people I know who absolutely dead set against him can’t make a rational argument why. It’s the same old Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity nonsense about socialism, Hitler, etc. These are the same people who have repeatedly act like we suddenly have a deficit where there was none before, that their constitutional rights have suddenly been taken away, and that the government wants to control their lives. I hear this several times a week. Then its even worse when politicians on the right fan the flames for political purposes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/
9-12 photos from Saturday in DC (not mine)
Hey, you know who you sound like, Travis? President Obama!
I disagree with Elemenope on a few points, but he’s mostly dead-on as far as Democratic hypocrisy. If there is a silver lining to the tea-party lunacy for me (and mass lunacy it is indeed), it’s that it has forced me to look at some of my own “Bush-hating” in a new light, as an outsider. I got the e-mail joke photos comparing George W. Bush to a Chimpanzee, and I probably even forwarded a few of them.
Now, all of a sudden I find myself saying “Hey, show the president of our country a little respect, or go find a new country to live in!”
Hypocritical? No question, I was. The question, though, is “Was I wrong to be like that then, or are they right to be like that now?
Personally, I found that rather clever. And I’m certainly not going to criticize ANY attempt to get people into the polling places. I think it’s just great that people are getting involved in politics!
Come to that, wasn’t that a rallying cry of the Democrats back in the ’70′s and ’80′s? It could be argued that the “get out the vote” and “silent majority” rhetoric has turned and bitten them on the butt.
Anyway, I’ll probably vote Dem in 2010, as every Rep guy they put up in my voting district has been an utter tosser. But it won’t be on health care issues – I live in Australia, it doesn’t effect me one way or the other, and Obama’s plans seem sound.
Well. I can say that this video certainly encouraged me to actually walk into the local Dem headquarters and volunteer the next time I go by.
Really? Why are some people so ignorant, stupid, and careless? My view is your opinion is invalid if you don’t have reasons to back them up. Without reason any idea, no matter how stupid it is, can catch on, e.g. the birthers and deathers. These are, as far as I can tell anyway, extremely ignorant and vicious people that infringe on everyone’s “free speech” by employing the “he who screams loudest is right” tactic (yes a tactic). Unfortunately this mindless approach has been shown to work in the past, just look at almost every election campaign. Very few people bother thinking about evidence and reason once they think it will upset their status somehow.
@sundog getting everyone to vote isn’t necessarily a good thing. If most of them are ill-informed and apathetic to have not voted in the past anyway.
But how else will you get them involved at all? EVERYONE starts out ignorant, and if they aren’t involved, will stay that way.
And Curt, while YOU may discount their opinions as “invalid”, the ballot box certainly doesn’t. If the majority does not want Obama’s reforms in 2010, then we won’t have them, regardless of why. Go ahead, believe they are “ignorant, stupid, and careless”. They will ignore you, and vote as they choose.
OR, you can actually try to address their concerns, explain and enhance their understanding of what’s going on, and maybe actually get somewhere.
yes everyone starts out ignorant, then at some point they decide to care. I would rather people inform themselves first rather than vote for things they have no knowledge about. As for addressing concerns and trying to help people understand, I do. I attend protests just to inform the people who have factually incorrect signs. I also try to talk with them and understand their views (instead of just insulting them like many more zealous people do).
Walking around a protest correcting factual errors in people’s signs seems like an awesome/horrible/brave/stupid thing to do.
On the one hand, it’s spreading critical thinking and fact-based truth in a way I can’t help but applaud, but on the other hand, it seems a bit needlessly confrontational, and an inefficient use of time and energy.
Not insulting them is a good way to go, though. It might just save your life.
And Curt, while YOU may discount their opinions as “invalid”, the ballot box certainly doesn’t. If the majority does not want Obama’s reforms in 2010, then we won’t have them, regardless of why.
You said that you live in Australia so you can get a pass on how stuff works here. We don’t vote on reforms or stuff like that. We elect officials and then they do what the hell they want. Sometimes it’s in line with what they were elected to do, but usually not.
But, that said, the freaks currently under discussion in this thread are not anything close to a “majority”. They’re a bunch of lunatics who scream really loud. Party identification for the GOP is falling steadily like a stone. If they were a majority, then they could have easily elected the two insane corrupt lunatics the GOP put on the presidential ticket last year.
Go ahead, believe they are “ignorant, stupid, and careless”. They will ignore you, and vote as they choose.
OR, you can actually try to address their concerns, explain and enhance their understanding of what’s going on, and maybe actually get somewhere.
Sorry, I left the last two lines of your post in my reply, making it a little confusing. Disregard.
please refer to the reply to sundog I posted. Maybe I said it to harsh: “ignorant, stupid, and careless”. I meant ignorant as “willfully ignorant,” stupid as people who just do what everyone else does instead of thinking about it, and careless as people who truly don’t give a damn. These three types of people are usually but not always the ones I find at protests. The willfully ignorant know they are right and choose not to be informed. The stupid just take current buzz words/phrases/sound bites and say them with passion sometimes accompanied by willful ignorance. The last group truly doesn’t care. This is not to say that all people fit one of these; this is to say that this is the majority I have seen personally at protests, which I go to and talk to people and inform them when they seem misinformed.
Oh truly, the loud and inelegant (on ANY issue) are never the majority, I well grant you that. But wherever you find such, there are two or three who are less loud, but also of the same opinion. It’s those people you need to convince – because while it can be hard to get people to vote FOR something (Like McCain and whoever his running mate was) it is traditionally much easier to get someone to vote AGAINST something.
I realise that the US does not vote on specific issues (as, in Australia, it is the same), but simultaneously an issue may be the point of contention at a particular election. 2010 is two years away, but I’ve seen an issue last longer than that.
I’ve been cautious about this line of thinking, but I’m really starting to get the impression that all this anti-Obama rhetoric is racism in disguise. It’s such incredible bullshit that I can’t think of another reason for it. I remember hearing Republicans grumble about Clinton, but they never seemed to be so vitriolic and irrational. This is just getting weirder by the moment…