Now now, don't write yourself off. You've shown a tendency to actually engage in the discussions of late, rather than comment on the commentators' comments. This trend should be encouraged! Up with conversation, down with meta-conversation!
Printable View
Now now, don't write yourself off. You've shown a tendency to actually engage in the discussions of late, rather than comment on the commentators' comments. This trend should be encouraged! Up with conversation, down with meta-conversation!
I'll see if I can find some blogs that support my team's point of view and quote them here. Then when someone disagrees with the said blog I'll demand graphs and research, and ask questions about foreign policy only a handful of people in the world are qualified to answer. Careful indentation and well placed links are a must of course.
:laugh4:
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I gave some thoughts of mine on Afghanistan that I thought were relevant. I responded to what you had posted. I mean, really Lemur, you expect me to answer this:
What's too corrupt? How much is too ineffective? Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?Quote:
If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
What's your answer to that Lemur?
CR
What's wrong with reading security reports? Or The Economist? They've been doing a bang-up job covering this issue. Or The Christian Science Monitor, for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
None of the questions I am posing are blue-sky hey-where-did-that-come-from stumpers. These issues are being debated in public. Counter-insurgency without a legitimate government to support is an exercise in plowing the sea. I thought that was understood.
A lack of time. :shrug:Quote:
What's wrong with reading security reports?
Anyway, what is your answer to that question of yours Lemur?
If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
Oh yeah, Robert Gibbs dimisses the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph as tabloids. Smooth move, that.
CR
I fear the answer is "no," but I'm hoping somebody will tell me otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The current pretender to the throne, his father was he most popular choice for leader, the coalition told him to go bugger himself and put up Karzai, a non-entity an stooge of Big Oil.
Too funny to not post, our PM with the anointed one. Picture of the year.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ezoenobama.jpg
Tie between Harry Potter and Kermit the frog
McChrystal troops request shelved pending review
So... apparently they're saying they don't even want to look at McChrystal's proposal until Obama figures out what he wants to do. Don't you think that the assessment of the general in charge should at least plan some role in the decision-making process? :dizzy2:
Well, let's see if the rumors about his resignation turn out to be true....Quote:
"Right now the focus is on the strategic assessment itself. It (the troop request) will be shelved until such time that the White House is ready," a defense official said in Washington.
"It is not going to be addressed, or reviewed, or analyzed until the White House is ready to begin discussing it."
And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
That's why the Afghan mission is in so much of a mess already - an invasion without an endgame, supporting a government without a mandate. And since the president is going to have to ask other countries to sacrifice their young men as well, it might be as well to present them with some sort of, you know, plan.
History suggests otherwise, after all Vietnam didn't have a strategy but was won by simply increasing the amount of soldiers there.Quote:
And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?
Absolutely. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
There are a few problems with that statement as it applies to the Obama Afghanistan strategy. First, McChrystal was Obama's chosen man to oversee the fight in Afghanistan, replacing the previous general in charge just this May. And what was their reasoning? Well, it seemed they had a new strategy for Afghanistan and needed a new general to implement it.The second problem with what you said is that the White House said that McChrystal's report isn't even being considered until they settle on their new strategy. McChrystal submitted a 66 page report, which I'm pretty sure had more written in it than "More troops!!!". He'd be remiss if he didn't also have a plan on how to use them. Essentially, the White House has said they don't care what he has to say- it's not going to be part of the decision-making process.Quote:
he leadership shift comes as the Obama administration has voiced increasingly urgent concern about the surge in violence in Afghanistan as well as unrest in neighboring Pakistan.
"We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership is also needed," Gates said at a hastily convened Pentagon news conference.
So, they had a new strategy this spring. Apparently, it was a miserable failure because they claim now that they have no strategy and need to formulate one. Further, Obama is not interested in the input of the general he appointed when it comes to formulating this strategy. Sounds like BS to me.
Obama wants to increase the amount of school that kids recieve throughout the year; including weekends and summers. Now I don't necessarily disagree with him, but anyone want to take a guess at how much more money the schools will need? Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?
The only place to extend the school year would be summer, so I don't think oil heating is gonna be a big issue. Then again, it's not as though you're putting forward a serious argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
And what major event has taken place recently which means the situation has now changed?Quote:
So, they had a new strategy this spring. Apparently, it was a miserable failure because they claim now that they have no strategy and need to formulate one.
The weekends as well and after 3 PM. What do you mean "only the summer"? What serious arguement? I don't even disagree, our kids are semi-retarded and are in need of a better education. The current school year is based on an agrarian lifestyle that is no longer a reality. Plus, teachers lives are far too easy and they should be worked to the grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm just saying that the increase in environmental destruction will be untold and immoral due to Air Conditioning.
more school hours != better education
Regardless of that, this is a decision that should not be made by the federal government.
The public got wise on the Whitehouse's act?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
At the core of McCrystals idea for attempting a successful counter insurgency was the requirement for a relatively stable local authority with sizable support. The recent elections in Afghanistan have shown that it doesn't exist.Quote:
The public got wise on the Whitehouse's act?
Wow, that made me laugh hard. I mean, people would go that low to bash Obama? If you're being serious, am I allowed to facepalm?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I'm not familiar with the arcanums of the US federal system, and while your Constitution might (or might not) state that this decision should only be taken by federal states, in what way are they better-suited or more competent when it comes to school? Wouldn't it seem better to you that all american children have access to the same level of education? I'm not talking about university and what not, but about primary school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Apart from that, yes I agree that more school hours doesn't mean better education, in some cases. Once again, I'm not familiar with the US education system, can't really comment on this.
When calling someone Hitler loses its shine, where do you go? How about enemy of humanity? (Kinda like Ming the Merciless, I guess.)
Well where could you go with a home skooling conspiracy theory cretinist wingnut?Quote:
When calling someone Hitler loses its shine, where do you go?
Look on the bright side, with all his campaigns for family values how long will it be before Trent Frank gets caught in a gay sex scandal,
I thought it was common courtesy to wait at least a year into an administration before calling for an armed coup.
-edit-
Wow, that was fast, Newsmax has pulled the story. How off-the-wall do you need to be to be too crazy for Newsmax?
-edit of the edit-
Found an archived copy of the entire article here.
I am not sure whether I am absolutely shocked, or not surprised at all.
I refer back to several pages ago, where several non-American posters called some of the opposition close to sedition and treason.
Are they out of their mind?
What's up with the populist rightwing of the American right? Are they dreaming of Argentina, 1980? Chile, Brazil? They too all believed they were fighting a marxist take-over.
There is a certain streak to the US right that is dangerously close to fascism. Ultra-right, ultra-religious, too pro-military, and in the end not very democratic at all. :shame:
Go blow up some Feds, guys. Just a truck is all it takes for your resistance to bring down a huge federal office. :2thumbsup:
<puts on white suit and does best Richardo Montalban impression>Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
"Welcome to Fantasy Island!"
Where does Obama find these people?
:dizzy2:Quote:
That Jennings knew of a sexually active 15-year-old, of any gender, involved with “an older man” and didn’t take steps to report that relationship to the student’s parents or to authorities has made him a target for criticism -- long before he was put in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
CR
Not true at all. Yes, the fringe (both left and right) has the biggest mouth, but in reality has very little overall support. Also, would you care to define the "ultras" that you've mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Timothy McVeigh is very real. And I'd like to prevent another one.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There is an overlap between him and the right of the right. He was not a coincidence, not a single fruitcake. He simply acted on what is spouted, on what is believed, by many.
The brew consists of the following ingredients:
- Anti federal government
- Pro-gun. Rather, extremist fear of Feds disarming the populace
- An excessive fondness of the military
- Anti UN
- Republican
- Dissapointment with the GOP
- Libertarianism
- Racism
- Anti taxes
And a certain fondness of consipracy theories. Of the idea that America is in the process of turning into a dictatorship.
Of course, simply being a Republican against tax increase doesn't an extremist make. It is the brew, the extremism, a degree of anger, and a fanatical and unquestioned belief in it all that makes up the extreme right.
It is not isolated. It feeds, and it is fed, constantly. By talk radio, by Fox, by the internet. And it trickles down into the more sober right, and up to the extremist hotheads.
None of this started with Obama. He does seem to have awoken these sentiments. Again, some ideas are now considered mainstream by their adherents that are tantamount to treason and sedition.
Was that president McVeigh or Senator McVeigh? Oh, you mean the fool who had a date with the needle. Shows how his far ilk can get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Now, with Timmy aside let's examine the rest
-Anti-fed. There are degrees of that. On one hand you have various crazies mostly holed up on our northern border, but those are few and far between. I'd say that far more are guys like me who think that less is more. Less Uncle Sam means more money in my pocket. A good thing.
-Pro-gun. Once again, it varies. Plenty of folks are packing, there are also a few collectors and a few doomsday fanatics who have enough firepower to supply a regiment. I'd take my gun everywhere I go if I had a gun. Yep, I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment but do not own a gun. I do cherish my right to get if from the nearest Walmart if I feel so inclined.
-Fondness for the military. Military is the force if the Federal gov't. You can't be anti-Fed and pro-military.
-anti UN. Screw UN.
-disappointment with the GOP. Is this good or bad?
-Libertarianism. What's wrong with that?
-racism. Racist America elects a black prez.
-anti-taxes. Yes, and?
-conspiracy theories. Not in general public.
If there wasn't a strong element of racism in America the pigmentation of the Presidents skin wouldn't even be an issue.Quote:
racism. Racist America elects a black prez.
When in a European country a black guy becomes PM/Prez without anyone noticing/discussing his race please feel free to rub it in my face. The guy/gal *has* to look the part though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
When a european country has had a similar proportion of the population for a similar amount of time then perhaps you can say something.Quote:
When in a European country a black guy becomes PM/Prez without anyone noticing/discussing his race please feel free to rub it in my face.
Big news America elects an American:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Let's make it easier then. Let's take a European country and see if it can elect a leader with 50% non-european ethnicity and then look and see whether or not his ancestry become a hot topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Fondness for the military. Military is the force if the Federal gov't. You can't be anti-Fed and pro-military.
There are plenty of people who treat the word fed like a swear word and think the military is the greatest thing ever... it seems illogical but when has that ever stopped people believing anything ?
When a european country has had a similar proportion of the population for a similar amount of time then perhaps you can say something.Quote:
Let's make it easier then. Let's take a European country and see if it can elect a leader with 50% non-european ethnicity and then look and see whether or not his ancestry become a hot topic.
France should have enough non-Euros to get to the 13%Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I am not sure why I got your back up so much, rvg. I'm not slagging off the US, I am referring to a well-documented phenomenon.
http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/colinea...-undemocratic/Quote:
By now, you’ve probably seen Pundit’s post about his run-in with Tom Baurle on Wednesday. Many people seem to be taking it as a pissing match between a radio host and a guy he hung up on, but I think there’s something far more important than Bauerle calling people names:
At around 9:52, Bauerle suggested that a new civil war was in order, advocated for secession, and suggested that liberals want to put people like him and Jim Ostrowski in concentration camps.This is pretty incredible, really — one of the most prominent public voices in WNY openly advocating for a military coup against our elected government. This isn’t some nutjob on a street corner, or some misanthrope in his basement. It’s the most popular local voice on the most popular radio station in town. So what does it mean?
Around 11:14, Bauerle advocated for an armed, military coup of the United States government, and wondered whether the military would “side with the people” to, I suppose, wipe out the anti-American liberals.
I’m not kidding about any of this.
It could be that Bauerle is just putting on an act in an attempt to generate an audience. But whether he really believes what he says doesn’t matter — either way, there is a substantial audience of conservatives who agree with what he’s saying, whether it’s an act or not.
I would link to an extensive study about the undemocratic right, but I don't know of any. I wouldn't mind reading one, so if anybody has a good recomendation or link, I'd be much obliged.
This is quite similar to the late 19th, early 20th french ultra-right. Religious nutjobs and nationalists pretending their country is ruled by the antichrist, jews (or in this case, black muslims) communists and socialists. While they don't have a huge electoral basis, they certainly are well-known, and sometimes respected and well-educated people.
They have a certain idea of America, and whoever disagrees with them is obviously wrong and ought to be eliminated. This is indeed very close to fascism (it is fascism in my opinion, but I guess people might disagree).
At least, Charles Maurras and his friends from L'Action Française used to be a decent writters. Most of those folks could hardly write a coherent and thought-out book. The amount of conspirationist mumbo-jumbo they have to put together probably doesn't help.
You're generalizing about a 300 million stong country based on one radio talking head? That does not seem reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
America isn't revolting anytime soon.
Tell me what there is to revolt against? Obama is Bush except he does a little more talking and has a watered down bill that cuts medicare.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
France should have enough non-Euros to get to the 13%
Most foriegners in france are from europe, many of the french non europeans are from france.
What we really need to shut up your nonsense is European leaders in history from different continents. well there is no shortage of those,and there certainly is no shortage of those who are 50% from another continent .
But of course you mean ethnicity which means they must not only originate from another continent they must be from another race or culture.
Ah but thats easy Europe beat you on that score by a long way:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ahahaha, a radio talking head? Louis, their job is to say crazy **** so people will listen.
RVG - no I am not. :wall:
Sasaki - the point is that millions of people do listen, to very many talking heads. They do not listen to Islamic internet sites that say that America is Satan. They do not listen to commie talk radio that says America is a fascist-industrial complex.
They do listen to alarmist 'America is a liberal dictatorship and Obama is gonna put you into a concentration camp'. Because this, unlike the others, is what they (somewhat) believe.
And even if they do not believe it all, even if they listen just because they like to get worked up a bit, there is a perfidious mechanism at work: if five is the reasonable middle between four and six, but people will shout without pause 'twenty!, twenty!, twenty!', then a lot of people will think the reasonable middle must be four plus twenty, so twelve instead of five. (Sheesh, learn proper terminology, Louis)
In effect, they might not believe they'll be send to a concentration camp anytime soon, but they will get out of it that reforming healthcare is tantamount to turning America into a socialist utopia. That a start-of-school-season speech is Hitlerite personality cult building. That they must protect America from the Jews and Bolshevists because Goebbels says so..erm, I mean: from the liberal-marxist dictatorship.
Says who? What makes you believe that the average Joe hears this and takes it to heart? Average Joe hears that under Obama's new plan 14% of Joe's paycheck will be pissed away on mandatory obamacare and thusly Joe gets upset. That however does not mean that Joe thinks of Obama as a liberal dictator who will eat Joe's children. I don't understand why is anything other than unconditional worship of Obama being interpreted as right wing fascism? People complain about Obama's plan because it is a bad plan. People are disagreeing with a would-be policy, that doesn't mean that they are ready to grab their torches and pitchforks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
a french born and bred non-european will suffice. Elect *that* then tell me how less racist europe is compared to the US. Until that happens, we have you beaten by a mile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So you mean that by vocal really crazy wingnuts spouting lots of nonsense people shift further to the crazy wingnut direction, but hold up the really crazy wingnuts to say that they themselves are perfectly normal compared to the real loonies even though they are actually insane.Quote:
And even if they do not believe it all, even if they listen just because they like to get worked up a bit, there is a perfidious mechanism at work: if five is the reasonable middle between four and six, but people will shout without pause 'twenty!, twenty!, twenty!', then a lot of people will think the reasonable middle must be four plus twenty, so twelve instead of five. (Sheesh, learn proper terminology, Louis)
Not very good at history are you, do you have trouble thinking of an elected leader of a western european country .Quote:
Until that happens, we have you beaten by a mile
Say a person of foriegn parents of a middle eastern culture .
Its amazing, he was named after a country that didn't exist until last century:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I do not. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
*sigh*
Then what is your point? Fringe crazies have always been there and always will be. Hardly anyone listens to them, and thus they are irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
And nowadays fringe crazies are mainstream corporate media and are getting some of the best ratings and are actually still increasing their ratings.Quote:
Fringe crazies have always been there and always will be. Hardly anyone listens to them, and thus they are irrelevant.
Its very hard to get good ratings when hardly anyone listens:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Good entertainment is supposed to get good ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You know something is probably wrong when the French and British both think you're a wuss.
Found myself a good bibliography about the hard right:
http://www.publiceye.org/research/bi...html#P185_7483
Many of the books and articles referenced are old. Pity, but it does show the pervasiveness of the movements. I am still searching for a study that investigates whether Obama has been a giant stimulus for these movements. I have the distinct impression he has. Both for him being Black, and for being a Democrat - which would show the race and party dimension of the hard right movements.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~###
The article concludes with this paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by EMFM
The anti-French onslaught of the period 2003-2007 did manage to re-write history. To change the pre-conceptions of France.
To think it's not a decade ago that the world - often rightfully so - loathed France for her many military adventures, neo-colonialism, aggressive posturing.
Ah well. It's the 21st century. That one fake Google page carries more currency than a library of books. Even to the quality press.
The mother of all articles about the peculiarities of US politics. How could I forget!? :wall:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html
To think I read this article ages ago and promised myself to always keep it in mind when thinking about America. I hang my head in shame and shall leave this thread. :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hofstadter, 1964
Already in 1964 Hofstadter gave the definite account of the US hardright. Tracing it back to its historical roots. And showing its remarkable historical consistency, valid to the present day and the contemporary right wing.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
For November of 1964 this is a very valid article. Today however is October of 2009. Things have changed, and in this particular regard they have changed for the better.
Oh, I dunno, read this passage from Louis' link:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse.
And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.
You are wrong , that was written in the 60's and we know that those wingnuts must have been crazy because it is now 40 years later and those conspiracy things didn't come to pass.Quote:
And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.
Nowadays we have the conspiracies for a new century, which is why they are nothing at all like the conspiracies of the 60s, because if they was like those conspiracies that would mean that todays wingnuts are crazy too.
Tea partiers do not bother me. They elect their congressmen, that means they own their congressmen. If they want their congressmen to crow like roosters, that's their prerogative. I personally find tea parties to be a waste of time and IQ, but they do not bother me on any deep level. As for Glenn Beck, with this guy around I no longer need to watch Comedy Central. He is absolutely hilarious, in many ways like Jon Stewart, except that Jon knows it's just a comedy gig, while Glenn really believes his own nonsense. That makes Glenn far more entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There's Glenn Beck and the Teaparties.
And the homeschooling.
And the 'liberal bias' of the press.
And anti-intellectualism.
And racism.
And fear of being 'undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers'.
And 'the foreign agent' trying to bring down America. (whether they be, in rough historical order, Jews, communists, UN, terrorists).
And their helpers, 'not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power'.
And the aggresive posturising against all of this.
And the paranoia.
Hofstadter doesn't trace it back to 1964. He traces it back to the 19th century, to the beginning of America. That's the beauty of it.
To paraphrase Hofstadter - it has been thought since the beginning. So if it were true, then America has been undermined since the beginning. So why did it come to be such a large, succesful, autonomous, capitalist country?
The language of the rightwing resistance to Obama has deep roots. And these roots cross over between the paranoid hardright and the mainstream right.
The fruitcakes are a fringe. A rather large fringe, but fringe nonetheless. The crossover with the mainstream right is what is troublesome.
Then again, I suppose here too Hofstadter applies - if it has been crossing over all this time, then apparantly the mainstream right is resilient to being taken over completely by complete paranoia.
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000908
Here's an essay about Hofstadter's essay. Not by a leftwinger, by an author who detests big government himself. And who rightfully points out that Hofstadter describes not merely a rightwing peculiarity:
Here's the chilling part:Quote:
Hofstadter is very clear that the “paranoid style” is something with deep roots in American culture. Something almost universal, in fact. In Hofstadter’s view this “paranoid style” was not necessarily right-wing, or the province of the G.O.P. Moreover the G.O.P. had arisen and been nurtured as a counter-movement to one of the earliest manifestations of the paranoid style, a political movement derided by Abraham Lincoln
If only everybody involved in the War on Terror had read Hofstadter...Quote:
And finally we come to what was certainly the most stunning, indeed, shocking aspect of Hofstadter’s study, namely, the process of psychological projection. The paranoid political advocate crafts a villainous enemy and imbues the enemy with horrendous traits. And to counter this, he crafts an organization which mimics the enemy and copies its traits.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.
And what is Fox - 'fair and balanced' - but a perverse mirror image of the rightist perception of the 'biased mainstream media'? To counter what was perceived as unremitting liberal bias, a mirror image to it was build, with an unremmiting rightwing bias.
So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.
Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% and 58% of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.
Because they are so inept :beam:. Just as they are so inept that they are in such a deep electoral hole right now. White, Southern, older/middle-aged, Christian males are not exactly a gargantuan demographic...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Sadly true. If at the start of the Obama elections I still identified more with Republicans despite my centrism, then now I do not wish to even associate myself with anything Republican. Conservatism is a splendid philosophy when applied to fiscal and purely political matters, although I most certainly do not support social conservatism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So, they are powerful and dangerous yet inept and helpless all at once.
They are not "powerful", well, depending on the definition. There are only two major political parties in US, thus every party is powerful - because they are only two. Democrats, at this point, are much stronger. Quite importantly, most celebrities and most of the media is liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
In general, in most educated group of people, it seems that Republicans are unpopular. And considering I live in Northwest Florida - Alabama-like countryside and typical Floridian beach resort cities, that is saying much. Or so my impression is. But I cannot associate Democrats with being unpopular as Republicans are. Hell, just saying that that almsot all the intelectuals support Democrats already indicates grim thoughts... If America was not made primarily of well, you know..., then Democrats would win every election.
Republicans are a party of religious zeal and anti-intellectualism. Their candidates reflect that. Obama vs McCain. Bush vs Kerry. Bush vs. Gore. Always a man not noted for his sharpness of thought, or a war hero, against the ever-unchanging intellectual. If you do not believe me, why do you think on February 18th, 2004, sixty two scientists, including forty-two Nobel laureates released that report? Bush is making a joke of science, twisting and manipulating it when not entirely ignoring science?
I am not quite sure what to answer to your questions, rvg.
Let's say that the rightwing has not turned America into a police state because if Hofstadter is correct and it has been crossing over all this time, then apparantly the mainstream right is resilient to being taken over completely by complete paranoia.
Why is it resilient? Because Hofstadter describes but a single aspect. US (rightist) political discourse has many aspects. Which ones make it resilient (is it? will it be?), I have some ideas but after trying to pinpoint earlier what I meant about the paranoia of the right, I am spend for the day.
I'm not on a witch hunt [size=1](me, I'm not paranoid :tongue:) against America, or the US right, or even the hardright. I am trying to understand what I see. And then suddenly I remembered that what I see has a name, and that it is not my own thoughts, but lingering memories of a famous essay. That is, I did not find a name to what I see, I saw what I did because I knew it had a name.
Hofstadter is the origin of this earlier quote of mine from last page:And I'm not alone in this interpretation, in seeing this connection. The connection is the paranoid style. Others have derived this connection from Hofstadter too, from my earlier link:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Quote:
And then we have the one really commanding example – the country in which the “paranoid style” perhaps went the furthest and had the greatest impact. That would be Germany in the period from roughly 1880 to the end of World War II. Hofstadter’s Columbia colleague, and my friend, Fritz Stern, wrote what may be a definitive application of the Hofstadter thesis in The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology
I'm still amazed that the only people consistently making fun of Obama are The Onion. Sure, John Stewart has taken some whacks, and SNL tries (lord how they try), but the only people squeezing comedy gold out of the current admin is America's Most Trusted News Source.
Healthy, Happy Obamas Out of Touch With Miserable Americans
And my all-time favorite: Obama Disappointed Cabinet Failed To Understand His Reference To 'Savage Sword Of Conan' #24
The comparison to late 19th century France is a good one. Look at the Dreyfus affair for example. There are those today who will point to a great conspiracy against the american way of life. It doesn't matter if they call it the syndicate or the evil secular liberal progressives(how those terms have been perverted by the right). We as a nation believe that there is a religion set up for the sole purpose of destroying our society. Both Americans and these past French men glorify the military as the embodiment of every value we hold dear and both see any insult to it as treason. We both have the same sensationalist media ready to find any conspiracy in any action. Facts? Why do you need those when our safety could be at stake? Besides even if there was a mistake how dare we insult the brave men who serve our country? While we may not be showing the same level of hatred displayed in the Dreyfus affair the same symptoms are there.
Heh, interesting that you note. The Economist ran an article on that this spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't they have failed at all. They have perverted American society into just what you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Tell me, which party likely to have real influence does someone of Jeffersonian aspiration nowadays vote for?
One that stands for (and would actually deliver) fiscal responsibility, freedom of choice for the individual, freedom from federal control, tolerance and equality of opportunity, pro-States' rights, effective checks and balances between the arms of government, avoidance of foreign entanglements and the upholding of the inalienable rights of Man?
Yep , where they burn books and dispute science in favour of myth, get so hung up over anything to do with sex...and of course think some brainless idiot from alaska is a good candidate because she is just like them.Quote:
They have perverted American society into just what you say.
anti intellectualism, the pride in being as thick as pig excrement
There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.
As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.
Even if you purchase it you must see the affront to enlightenment ideals thats is. Simply becuase you disagree with an idea does not mean you can burn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
In the day of the printing press we have become callous to this but burning books used to be a very big deal.
IMO anyone who burns books is not protesting but killing America.
It's not even a good from of civil discourse. Instead of debate you simply burn, how is that ok?
Well, that's the thing: ideas do not burn. Which is why burning books is nothing more than a form of speech. Now, if we were talking about a government sanctioned extermination of an idea, then yes, it would be horrible. As it is, the writers of those books are laughing all the way to the bank, since they get paid regardless of whether their books end in a library or in a landfill. Heck, if I had an idea for a book so bad that I knew that people would burn it en masse, I would be a millionaire. You buy the book, you own it. read it, burn it, wipe your ass with it, it is not my place to tell you what to do with your property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I agree that it should be legal. I just think it's small minded and not a good way to espouse your displeasure. When you need to resort to burning books you've lost the arguement
Sure, it is small minded. This is America though, and people here can be as small minded as they wish to be. They are free to be wordly as well, if they choose to. Just because it is *better* to be wordly doesn't mean that we should strip the people of their right to be small minded.
No one said it was , it was said about the paranoid freaks who often call themselves the Republican Base.Quote:
As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless.
I'm going to say none of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Yes, they have the right to be small minded but it doesn't mean they should be. Just as they have a right to be racist it is not something our society should encourage or idealize.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg