(08-06-2009 09:07 AM)Paul M Wrote:  You quote me and ignore what I said. Let me state it again in bold.
This is a copy and paste from my own post.

Of course racism exists.

And you stand by what you said about that caricature. OK. So now caricatures can no longer be drawn of blacks. I guess at every fair across the land we will now see signs saying, "Sorry, we can no longer do business with the black folk. We apologize for what would appear to be a racist policy, but due to the charges of racism for taking your perfectly good money and drawing your picture, we are in a no win situation and just give up."

Maybe you could just point out to the rest of us what exactly is racist in that particuly sig?

I'm glad we can both agree that racism is a factor in some of the opposition to what Obama is doing.

As for the caricature, I agree that satirists have a tricky job when it comes to Obama, and a number of articles have been written about this. The picture in question strikes me as reminiscent of old-school racist caricatures from earlier this century, and I suspect if you were to take a poll of the general public most would agree with me.

Here's an interesting blog entry about racism in caricatures:

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/01...ricatures/

(08-06-2009 09:56 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Look it's pointless to try and discuss this stuff with you because time and again you're proven wrong and you just ignore it and then move on to something else to be wrong about. You've constructed a nice little reality for yourself that exists outside the true reality the majority of people live in. Enjoy it.

Proven wrong how exactly? Did you read the Chris Cilizza article? What numbers deep inside the fine print of the party affiliation study by Gallup gives you hope? Are you disputing the fact that demographic projections for the coming decades spell bad news for Republicans?

Yes, Obama's approval has dropped since he took office. Everybody knew it would. It's still relatively high, which is remarkable considering the sustained, relentless negative attacks he receives from the right (which were to be expected after 8 years of relentless attacks on Bush.)

I showed you the polls that show the support of Obama's specific platforms, but you disregard them because they don't back your viewpoint. Fair enough.

(08-06-2009 10:05 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Yes, Obama's approval has dropped since he took office. Everybody knew it would. It's still relatively high, which is remarkable considering the sustained, relentless negative attacks he receives from the right (which were to be expected after 8 years of relentless attacks on Bush.)

It's not remarkable. I could be wrong, maybe someone will provide a link, but I believe I heard that other than Clinton, it is the fastest drop ever.

Apologizes if I am wrong on this.

(08-06-2009 08:52 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  As far as specific issues – keep in mind that there is a wide swath of people on the far left who believe he is not going far enough on these issues, and will respond they disapprove of his handling of those issues.

I think this gets to the crux of Obama's dilemma.

He got himself elected by putting together a coalition ranging from socialists/communists on the left edge of the political spectrum to centrists who hated Shrub, by promising each of them what they wanted to hear, never minding (and never being called to account by anyone because of the widespread disdain for Shrub) that most of those promises were mutually exclusive. Now he's in office and he's got to wend his way through the minefield he has created. Being president is sorta like being a community organizer, except there are consequences.

I would much prefer he move toward the center at the risk of losing the extreme fringe, just as Clinton did and just as I wish Shrub would have. Over and above my own preferences, I think this makes sense because:
1. A lot of the far left vote is black, and unless they change color or he does, they're in his pocket no matter what.
2. If he loses support in the center, they will go to a republican who can beat him in 2012; if he loses support on the left, they will go to Ralph Nader who can't.
3. The recent experiences of Clinton and Shrub should make it obvious which one works best.

I think he's going to have a hard time doing that. I think he is a socialist/communist/fascist at heart (I wouldn't have included fascist based on the campaign, but I've been surprised at how much fascism has crept in during the first 6 months of his term), and the center doesn't really fit his instincts. He will have to decide whether he cares enough about his legacy to move to the center and save it, and if he decides yes then he will have the potentially larger problem of figuring out how to bring Reid and Pelosi into that mindset. The Blue Dogs could loom huge before all is done, and I'm probably more comfortable with them holding the balance of power than anyone else.

I still see him as a Chicago street hustler, and this is his ultimate con. The problem with street hustlers is that things go great as long as nobody catches them in a lie, but once that happens things can fall apart in a hurry.

(08-06-2009 09:59 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 09:07 AM)Paul M Wrote:  You quote me and ignore what I said. Let me state it again in bold.
This is a copy and paste from my own post.

Of course racism exists.

And you stand by what you said about that caricature. OK. So now caricatures can no longer be drawn of blacks. I guess at every fair across the land we will now see signs saying, "Sorry, we can no longer do business with the black folk. We apologize for what would appear to be a racist policy, but due to the charges of racism for taking your perfectly good money and drawing your picture, we are in a no win situation and just give up."

Maybe you could just point out to the rest of us what exactly is racist in that particuly sig?

I'm glad we can both agree that racism is a factor in some of the opposition to what Obama is doing.

As for the caricature, I agree that satirists have a tricky job when it comes to Obama, and a number of articles have been written about this. The picture in question strikes me as reminiscent of old-school racist caricatures from earlier this century, and I suspect if you were to take a poll of the general public most would agree with me.

Here's an interesting blog entry about racism in caricatures:

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/01...ricatures/

We just can't do caricatures of blacks any longer. That's real progress and shows how much we have moved past all this color stuff. sarcasm.

(08-06-2009 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 08:52 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  As far as specific issues – keep in mind that there is a wide swath of people on the far left who believe he is not going far enough on these issues, and will respond they disapprove of his handling of those issues.

I think this gets to the crux of Obama's dilemma.

He got himself elected by putting together a coalition ranging from socialists/communists on the left edge of the political spectrum to centrists who hated Shrub, by promising each of them what they wanted to hear, never minding (and never being called to account by anyone because of the widespread disdain for Shrub) that most of those promises were mutually exclusive. Now he's in office and he's got to wend his way through the minefield he has created. Being president is sorta like being a community organizer, except there are consequences.

I would much prefer he move toward the center at the risk of losing the extreme fringe, just as Clinton did and just as I wish Shrub would have. Over and above my own preferences, I think this makes sense because:
1. A lot of the far left vote is black, and unless they change color or he does, they're in his pocket no matter what.
2. If he loses support in the center, they will go to a republican who can beat him in 2012; if he loses support on the left, they will go to Ralph Nader who can't.
3. The recent experiences of Clinton and Shrub should make it obvious which one works best.

I think he's going to have a hard time doing that. I think he is a socialist/communist/fascist at heart (I wouldn't have included fascist based on the campaign, but I've been surprised at how much fascism has crept in during the first 6 months of his term), and the center doesn't really fit his instincts. He will have to decide whether he cares enough about his legacy to move to the center and save it, and if he decides yes then he will have the potentially larger problem of figuring out how to bring Reid and Pelosi into that mindset. The Blue Dogs could loom huge before all is done, and I'm probably more comfortable with them holding the balance of power than anyone else.

I still see him as a Chicago street hustler, and this is his ultimate con. The problem with street hustlers is that things go great as long as nobody catches them in a lie, but once that happens things can fall apart in a hurry.

I agree with much of your premise, but I would say - and most liberals I know would agree - that he has moved to the center.

There is considerable dissatisfaction with Obama on a wide range of issues from the left, especially things like his inaction on Don't Ask Don't Tell, his continuation of certain Bush policies like warrantless wiretapping, etc.. Now some of these things may ultimately be resolved, and I think people are being patient, but there is alot of unease. Obama's constant calls for bipartisanship - in the health care debate, for instance - has been met with a great deal of consternation from many on the left.

I agree that politically it makes sense for him to stay as close to the center as possible, because ultimately the liberal wing of the party has nowhere else to go.

And I believe that he is far more of a centrist at heart than those on the right give him credit for.

They fiscally assault me every damn day. F'em.

(08-06-2009 10:26 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  And I believe that he is far more of a centrist at heart than those on the right give him credit for.

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest to me that there is so much as one centrist bone in his body.
The areas where he has p!$$#d off the left--like the wars and terror stuff--are areas where I think he really has no latitude.
I actually wish he would move toward what is considered the "left" in those areas, but I never really had much belief that he would.
I don't see anything he's done where he went to the center when he had a chance to go left.
If you think differently, I'd be interested in knowing where.

I guess this is something we'll have to wait and see about, just like whether or not Obamanomics will work.

"Obamanomics" is a misnomer. You guys act like this type of economics has never existed or been tried. It has. It failed. It's Keynesian economics with a stench of Socialism AND Fascism. This is the administration of revenge.

(08-06-2009 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess this is something we'll have to wait and see about, just like whether or not Obamanomics will work.

Fair enough

I've enjoyed the discussion, but I've got to log off for a while and get some things done.

I decided to take a wait and see approach, so I wold not get drawn into the WVCrazyIdiocy. I see no update to this story, no one has been charged for the "physical assault".

I am beginning to doubt it even happened. The "poll driven" democrats goals are to ignore citizens who want to desperately be heard. By putting forth the image of MOBS at town hall meetings allows the Democrats to further ignore the speech of independently free thinking people. The White House is in full assault mode, marginalizing and dermonizing any critics. Rule #12 is in full swing. These are despicable tactics. The mere claim of any opposition organizing is touted not as grassroots, but Astroturf, another language misnomer, Only Democrats can have grassroot, remember Acorn, George Soros, Media Matters, Huff Post.

The American public is being assaulted, they are the ones being beaten down.

Terrific piece by Rachel Maddow about the big GOP $$$ and corporate interests behind all these disruptive town hall meetings, and how they manipulate people with fear, lies and distortions in order to get them to support positions that are beneficial to their bottom line.

Great stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl91YF1d3Kg

"To talk about these town hall events as some organic outpouring of average American folks who have concerns about health care is to be willfully blind as to what is really going on-which is professional P.R. operatives generating exploitive, manufactured, strategically deployed outrage in order to line their own pockets. These P.R. spinmeisters get paid a lot of money for doing it. The corporations they work for get to kill legislation that would hurt their profits.

And the real people who they launch into these town hall settings after they're told that health care reform is a secret commie plot to kill old people and to mandate sex changes-those real people get more and more and more angry, and more and more and more alienated. And ultimately, they get left, like the rest of us, with a health care system that is broken and doesn't work in the interests of the American people, but does work in the interests of the corporations that profit from the way the system is now.

This is professional, corporate-funded, Republican staffed P.R., and it should be reported as such. "

(08-06-2009 03:40 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Terrific piece by Rachel Maddow .... snip

No thanks. I can't stand that dude.

Look at all the NAZIS!





/sarcasm

(08-06-2009 03:40 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Terrific piece by Rachel Maddow about the big GOP $$$ and corporate interests behind all these disruptive town hall meetings, and how they manipulate people with fear, lies and distortions in order to get them to support positions that are beneficial to their bottom line.

Great stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl91YF1d3Kg

"To talk about these town hall events as some organic outpouring of average American folks who have concerns about health care is to be willfully blind as to what is really going on-which is professional P.R. operatives generating exploitive, manufactured, strategically deployed outrage in order to line their own pockets. These P.R. spinmeisters get paid a lot of money for doing it. The corporations they work for get to kill legislation that would hurt their profits.

And the real people who they launch into these town hall settings after they're told that health care reform is a secret commie plot to kill old people and to mandate sex changes-those real people get more and more and more angry, and more and more and more alienated. And ultimately, they get left, like the rest of us, with a health care system that is broken and doesn't work in the interests of the American people, but does work in the interests of the corporations that profit from the way the system is now.

This is professional, corporate-funded, Republican staffed P.R., and it should be reported as such. "

One thing for sure. Rachel Maddow saying it doesn't make it true.

The whole fake protesters has much been exposed as fallacious. Peolsi, Maddow and other who are foolish enough to incorrectly refer to public disdain and descent for Obamacare are exposing themselves as out of touch with the people who are desperately wanting to be heard, and who the DNC are trying to silence using the despicable tactics of " by whatever means necessary. "

BTW, Chattiger had an excellent point about this "so-called" calling by those evil insurance companies:

(08-06-2009 02:54 PM)ChattTiger Wrote:  funny that our resident leftists on here have been accusing the "mobs" to have been organized by the Republican party or the insurance lobby, yet they can't provide any documentation of this. yet the President sends out an e-mail to essentially a nationalized community organizing group to show up and counter the opposition.

(08-06-2009 11:44 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I decided to take a wait and see approach, so I wold not get drawn into the WVCrazyIdiocy. I see no update to this story, no one has been charged for the "physical assault".

I am beginning to doubt it even happened. The "poll driven" democrats goals are to ignore citizens who want to desperately be heard. By putting forth the image of MOBS at town hall meetings allows the Democrats to further ignore the speech of independently free thinking people. The White House is in full assault mode, marginalizing and dermonizing any critics. Rule #12 is in full swing. These are despicable tactics. The mere claim of any opposition organizing is touted not as grassroots, but Astroturf, another language misnomer, Only Democrats can have grassroot, remember Acorn, George Soros, Media Matters, Huff Post.

The American public is being assaulted, they are the ones being beaten down.

Today's PC Democrats don't know what being physically assaulted is.

(08-06-2009 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2009 03:40 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Terrific piece by Rachel Maddow about the big GOP $$$ and corporate interests behind all these disruptive town hall meetings, and how they manipulate people with fear, lies and distortions in order to get them to support positions that are beneficial to their bottom line.

Great stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl91YF1d3Kg

"To talk about these town hall events as some organic outpouring of average American folks who have concerns about health care is to be willfully blind as to what is really going on-which is professional P.R. operatives generating exploitive, manufactured, strategically deployed outrage in order to line their own pockets. These P.R. spinmeisters get paid a lot of money for doing it. The corporations they work for get to kill legislation that would hurt their profits.

And the real people who they launch into these town hall settings after they're told that health care reform is a secret commie plot to kill old people and to mandate sex changes-those real people get more and more and more angry, and more and more and more alienated. And ultimately, they get left, like the rest of us, with a health care system that is broken and doesn't work in the interests of the American people, but does work in the interests of the corporations that profit from the way the system is now.

This is professional, corporate-funded, Republican staffed P.R., and it should be reported as such. "

One thing for sure. Rachel Maddow saying it doesn't make it true.

Did you watch the report? What about it do you suspect is false? She's simply presenting facts.

People post things from far-far-far right sites here and it's taken for gospel. It might be a good idea just to take a look at another point of view, right?

(08-06-2009 03:55 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  She's simply presenting facts.

Um, no. He NEVER presents facts.