Printable View
Yes, nary a prism can be found through which a war veteran or an engaging combatant can't be seen as a moocher unable to take personal responsibility (let alone responsibility for the country they are serving), but through which a gun-hoarding private citizen computing the size of the temple of Jerusalem appears as a scion, the true leader of society. Life does go on, except for those war veterans who end up in boxes with American flags on top.
^^ See? To those who are culturally or politically on the left (like Nessus, me and most of us here), a gun-owner or a person of faith is often seen in a negative light compared to a welfare recipient.
The real issue is there's no reason to hate either group.
.
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Great skit, btwQuote:
The fact that extremely smart people offer up diametrically opposed solutions to these problems with 100 percent certitude erodes my confidence that we really know what to do. There's a reasonable chance that we are modern analogues to Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber (start at about the two-minute mark if you don't get the reference), and that policymakers 80 years from now will look at us with the same mix of sadness and disdain that we apply to the policymakers of the late 1920s, who were absolutely confident they were taking the proper steps to do what was best for the economy.
This is a financial collapse, and financial collapses usually take a decade to work through, meaning we’re probably about halfway through this. I’m basically skeptical either party will be able to alter these numbers all that much. Governing during this time will generally be electorally catastrophic.
I thought English was your first languageQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
But Obama's gaffe wasn't related to policy like Romney's gaffe. Your use of the word WELFARE is the attitude Romney's comment wanted to illicit, pitting one group against another, Us vs Them, Takers vs Makers. In reality, those 47% who aren't paying federal income taxes aren't welfare recipients, but are doing exactly what Romney and his wealthy donors do -- using the tax code legally. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I thought reasoning was something we shared, but apparently you have joined the partisan bickering brigade...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Take off your spinning glasses and re-read the two excerpts. Even if you dislike Obama you should be able to grasp the differences on some level. I realise a bunch of nitwit talking heads are trying to draw parallels but you have a mind of your own don't you? I too thought "reasoning was something we shared"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
So disagreeing with the article means we don't have our own minds?
So much for diversity of thought!
Are there differences? Of course, there are differences. There are always differences. The question is does it matter? Are the differences important and should we care about them? My answer to both of those is "no," and I think that the comparison of the two pieces and a person's reaction to them is actually a good exercise for displaying a person's prejudices/partisan glasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The point is that Dread's implications that the two are qualitatively the same and that they're equally awkward and difficult to justify and that they're both "gaffes" in the same sense are, well, incorrect. In his defense, part of Romney's sucking up is accurate and appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
As for having our own minds and being capable of reasoning objectively:
Quote:
The struggle to explain them always comes off as awkward to the people who don't support the person making the gaffe. That's politics and the prisms through which we view these things. Life goes on.
They are incorrect to YOU! It's political hackery on both sides and thus subjective.
Reading the whole excerpt, I find PresBo's remarks even more condescending.
Fixed that for you :cylon:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
I count at least 4 reasoning people who disagree. It is incredibly condescending to say essentially "Why don't you agree with me? That means you don't have your own mind"Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
They aren't being condescending Rand...they are being compassionate to the little minds here that have the gall to post their quaint little thoughts.
NO GODS, NO KINGS, ONLY MANQuote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Isn't that so?
Let's break this down here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Four years apart, Obama and Romney were secretly recorded at fundraisers making remarks that disparaged people who aren't likely to vote for them.
I can fully admit a certain sympathy for Romney's view. But I'm completely able to step back and acknowledge that Romney's statement remains little more than a stupid and dismissive take on people who don't support him. Much as I can point out that Obama's statement was also dismissive and highly divisive.
You seem unable to grasp the pretty obvious parallels between two politicians being politicians with their guard let down...yet I'm the partisan "nitwit"?
Well Dread, this is the disconnect. We can call dumabass on both sides, yet certain members refuse to.
Goes back to my previous point about most of the Republican-supporters here supporting the GOP because it's the lesser of two evils, while most of the Democrat-supporters believe the DNC is the paragon of virtue, led by the holy prophet Obama. I might be more sympathetic with the latter if they were legitimate left-wingers who happened to believe that the Democrats are more likely to implement their agenda; in reality, they consistently repeat the talking points of the DNC, even when they bear no relation to economic ideology.
Well....GOP support feeling like a cattle prod in my kidneys...is that what you mean Loki?
Is that a new type of fetish? :o
Oh, grow up the lot of you. There are clear differences between what Obama said and what Romney said. Ignoring them so you can pretend you hold some kind of fatuous non-Partistan high ground isn't going to make them go away. Let's quote them both from the article Minx posted (which has also been ignored)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
So, you've got one guy whose sympathetic, if patronizing, and another guy who is saying, "fuck them, they're not my problem because they're not rich and it's their fault" and who is extending his generalization to an entire 47% of the country rather than just "some of these small towns".Quote:
Originally Posted by Romeny
Erm, your definition of sympathetic is someone who calls people unintelligent, racist, extremists?
Would you like to know more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Doesn't seem to cover it either way, Loki.Quote:
1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
2. the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
3. the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.
4. sympathies,
a. feelings or impulses of compassion.
b. feelings of favor, support, or loyalty: It's hard to tell where your sympathies lie.
5. favorable or approving accord; favor or approval: He viewed the plan with sympathy and publicly backed it.
They are similar and have obvious surface parallels. Neither is really all that important. Anyone wasting the time to try and pick them apart, compare them at a deeper level and declare that one is more or less wrong than the other is grinding an axe. What I'm hearing is a lot of rationalizing and cognitive dissonance. Accept that your mind is playing a trick on you and let it go.
SG:And the nuance escapes you on what Romeny was trying to (badly) say.
He's not writing them off as Human Beings, but he is writing them off as people to go after for votes in an election. Just as PresBo does.
Romeny has solidified as much of the base he can, Obama has his as well (both with some weakness there), they know they can't win over the other's polarized rank and file...so it's up to both of them (as it has been for sometime) to go for the 5-10% fence sitters.
The right bludgeoned Obama on his oopsie and now the left is bashing Romeny. Shocker.
Edit; Agreed with Fuzzy.
"Don't argue about it any more, just accept I'm right because otherwise you're rationalizing" - how about no.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Ah, right, we're doing nuances now. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
If that was all he'd said I doubt this would be causing half the fuss it is, but unfortunately in the process he insulted nearly have the population of the country he's supposed to be running for president of. And while the Dems have an advantage in the bottom 47%, they' don't have all of them so he's actually insulted significant proportions of his own voter base as well.Quote:
He's not writing them off as Human Beings, but he is writing them off as people to go after for votes in an election.
Quote:
Just as PresBo does.
Quote:
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives.
Quote:
our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives.
Quote:
our challenge is to get people persuaded
Tell me, do you actually read the English language?Quote:
get people persuaded
He's both saying that they aren't practical to go after and mischaracterising the group in a highly negative way, as people afflicted with a victim mentality who don't take personal responsibility (perhaps because of the gummint's indulgence/generosity, I dunno).Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Except that it's the opposite of what Obama did. Obama said that it's a challenge to reach and persuade people who don't see evidence in their real lives of the goodies he was trying to promise:Quote:
Just as PresBo does.
He was referring to specific groups and some may take issue with his dismissal of their attitudes as being little more than reactions to eg. the suckiness of life. I am of course inclined to see his view as being more factual because I've been taught that racism, violence, religious fundamentalism etc. flourishes when life seems to suck. Is that not true? Isn't it part of the reason why poor black people in the US are hard to persuade about the potential value of hard work and education? You tell me, which of the two candidates' views are more sympathetic and realistic:Quote:
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives.
I suppose some might prefer to say that racism and violence and religious fundamentalism are not reactions to sucky lives, perhaps that's a better way to view people.Quote:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
But fuck 'em, right?
The thing with Romney is, he may be right about a tax-lowering message not being particularly interesting to people who don't pay federal income tax, but the rest of his remarks are not only incorrect--they are deeply unsympathetic and callous. You guys woulda understood this if you'd been discussing two excerpts from neutral pieces of literature in a highschool English class rather than desperately fighting for moral equivalence on a forum.Quote:
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background – there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.
Is it even possible to have a rational conservation about politics with you guys?
Your first response to me pointing out how Romney called 47% worthless was that he didn't say that exact word. Yet you paraphrase this from Steely's post? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Coming from the king of single sentence zings and insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Priceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Enjoy living in your little bubble where only people who disagree with you politically can ever be wrong.
LOKI: What Romeny said and what Obama said are just the same!
EVERYONE ELSE: No they're not, and here's why [explanation of how they're different]
LOKI: They're just the same, and if you say they're not, it's because you're being partisan
EVERYONE ELSE: no, but really, they are actually pretty different, look here's the text of what they said [text] and how they're different [how they're different]
LOKI: La la la I can't hear you! They are exactly the same! anyone who says there is being partistan!
Yes. We are truly the ones who are living in a bubble.
Everyone else = rabid Democrat-supporters
When you only consider people with the same ideology as you as "everyone else", perhaps you should look in a mirror.
Look, I actually subscribe--to some extent--to the view on some of the "causes" of racism/xenophobia, fundamentalism, etc. that Obama expresses in that old quote. I subscribe to the view that it's hard to reach people with a message of hope and change when those people see very little cause for hope in change in their lives. I dunno if that's partisan, but I suppose it might be a bias. It fits with my views on people and on the world, that many of the things I dislike are a result of other negative things.
I can--on some level--grok Romney's notion that people who don't pay federal income tax won't be swayed by promises of lowering federal income taxes. But does anyone here really subscribe to the view that the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax are fairly characterised as having an aversion to taking personal responsibility? :bulb:
Isn't it about time someone chained you to a rock and got a snake to drip venom on your face?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So the difference between the dismissive and offensive Obama and Romney quotes is that you agree with the Obama one. Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And all the other things Minx has mentioned, which you've ignored.