"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[The Fake Shemp]

Wait, we were seriously arguing that something decides rights other than mob rule?

Please tell me someone said God.

[The Fake Shemp]

Now you're trolling!

Just because you feel something should be a right, doesn't necessarily make it so. If that's the case, we could take random women by force and have our way with them. I mean, that's what we're genetically predisposed to do, is it not? That should be a right!

[Human Snorenado]

Now you're trolling!

Just because you feel something should be a right, doesn't necessarily make it so. If that's the case, we could take random women by force and have our way with them. I mean, that's what we're genetically predisposed to do, is it not? That should be a right!

"I like the cut of your jib, sir."

[Van Cruncheon]

objectively? of course not. subjectively? fuck, yes.

[Barry Egan]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

 

[Brehvolution]

The guy has to say something scandalous to sell mags.

[The Fake Shemp]

What we do know is that Barack Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's our fault, for thinking he was different.

True.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Yeah, I'm not really down with Prole's facile expressions of subjectivism in this thread.  Actually over however many weeks or months this has been going on I've started on a few posts explaining why, but I keep discovering I'm not ready for a philosophical argument right now, so you'll have to make do with this bare assertion.

[recursivelyenumerable]

By the way, re the Esquire article, for some reason even though I kind of liked The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I read them as a teenager, I never personally identified with the heroes.  In fact I sort of identified with the losers and took it as a personal attack on me, even though at that time I was going to college at a young age so I had quasi-objective grounds to think of myself as a world-striding genius if I wanted.  But I've always thought of myself as a loser.

[Van Cruncheon]

Yeah, I'm not really down with Prole's facile expressions of subjectivism in this thread.  Actually over however many weeks or months this has been going on I've started on a few posts explaining why, but I keep discovering I'm not ready for a philosophical argument right now, so you'll have to make do with this bare assertion.

so you just want the acknowledgment for disagreeing with me without the work? typical lazy college intellectual!

[recursivelyenumerable]

But I appear to have got it, so I'm off to pawn your acknowledgment for drug and Cadillac money.

[Dickie Dee]

Michael Steele & The RNC Interns

[The Fake Shemp]

Is he really black? Really?

[Brehvolution]

A soon as Obama is out of office, Steele is out of a job too.

[Robo]

Then it's a good thing he has a few other skills, like killing white people:

[TakingBackSunday]

god, all of those interns look like your standard southern frat boy

[The Fake Shemp]

Michael Steele is like that dad that makes their children uncomfortable because he tries to act "cool".

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2009&base_name=oh_matt_taibbi

annihilated

[Robo]

I love the crazed look on Steele's face in that headlock picture.

[Barry Egan]

still convinced that Michael Steele is the RNC's playful homage to Steve Carell's Michael Scott.  Perhaps as a way to remind people that Republican's have a history of supporting mid-range businesses.       

[Robo]

god, all of those interns look like your standard southern frat boy

It's all in the haircut and tie selection, I think.

[The Fake Shemp]

That's an impossibility at this point. You would destroy the only real labor market that now exists within the United States. Our economy and our workforce is now based on the financial sector and all of its products.

Also, I think that would be an unwise move. The real reform needs to be tighter regulations, transparency and accountability. I don't care if banks are trading derivatives, I just want to know to who and where and how much.

It's funny, because the solutions exist. We know what to do. We just choose not to.

[Mandark]

50 best protest signs of 2009


edit:  #50 especially for Ghengis

[Van Cruncheon]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2009&base_name=oh_matt_taibbi

annihilated

not really; only the first criticism is legitimate, and the rest is sort of half-assed disapproving agreement. also, please shut up about how mean matt is, pussies.

[Mandark]

It's not that he's mean, it's that he's dumb.

Well, that or dishonest.  He tries to sell Austen Goolsbee as a firebreathing populist, based on one quote.  This is the same Austen Goolsbee that came out of Milton Friedman's University of Chicago, who published for Bob Rubin's Hamilton Project, and who was sympathetically profiled by George F. Will.  If Goolsbee had landed a cabinet-level job, Taibbi would have rattled off those factoids, then wiggled his fingers in the air and made ghost noises.

[Mandark]

However, do you believe that there is any such thing as right and wrong? Was the Holocaust objectively wrong?

Yes, absolutely.

Natural rights are the basis by which you can even call such a thing "wrong" without it being nothing more than a meaningless opinion, and one that should carry no force, whether alone or in tandem with others.  Certainly, the quantity of people holding an opinion does not make it true.

But since you brought it up, no, if genocide is made legal within your jurisdiction, then no, outside of the bounds of unalienable rights, there is nothing "wrong" with genocide, no valid or meaningful criticism to be had - your society has deemed your subgroup's presumed right to life null and void, have a nice day.

I'm getting flashbacks to my first college roommate, who asked me how I couldn't believe in God, cause then there would be no basis for ethics or morality whatsoever.

It's like he was scared to believe that humans created their own rules of behavior and interaction.  He had to believe that it came from some transcendent, authoritative source.

I'm like so prescient and shit.

I'm awarding myself 10 points.

[Mandark]

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

These Steele pics are great, I'm coming around on this guy.  Maybe he's not so terrible after all.

Note the raised leg.


play-aya


play-aya digs his cracker ladies



now that's either a very ugly young man, or a kid with downs' (at which point, jokes about political affiliation stop being funny)


this feels like a freeze-frame of a 80's sitcom intro.  Call it, "Elephants Never Forget", or "Steele'in Away", where a wacky minority shakes up a bunch of stodgy, whitey folks and lessons are learned and ties are loosened.

[Mandark]

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society,

I believe they do.

please prove it.

[Mandark]

So natural rights are important, because otherwise morals and ethics are just a bunch of opinions, which are worthless.

And natural rights exist because it's your opinion that they do.

Hm.

[Human Snorenado]

I'm also pretty sure that unicorns exist because I want them to, Jaydubya.

[Human Snorenado]

50 best protest signs of 2009


edit:  #50 especially for Ghengis

@ those, especially



Oh hey look, it's Maurice





Fucking hipsters



This guy is awesome.



Oh white people, I promise it's gonna be ok.  We're even gonna spend more money on education, so shit like this doesn't have to happen:



But the gay marriage ones are the awesomest.





This sign is obviously being carried by a member of the 'bore:



Finally, a special mention to this confused fellow who has either taken offense to Willco or squeezed oranges:

[Flannel Boy]

For my part, I hold to Triumph's statement about unicorns from The Official Topic of Obama that they are "self-evident truths," and I simply say I support the notion.  Which I said, and have said before.

[The Fake Shemp]

No, they exist because they do.

They exist because they just do! Case closed!

[Human Snorenado]

No, they exist because they do.

They exist because they just do! Case closed!

It's kind of like a Christian saying "because God, Jesus and the Bible!"

[The Fake Shemp]

I got to give credit to Mandark, because he stuck with his schtick the entire way through. I really didn't think he'd be able to pull JayDubya into typing something like that.

[Brehvolution]

Term limits for unicorns!

[Boogie]

If you're just going to keep quoting yourself whilst ignoring anything I say, we're done with this.

For my part, I hold to Jefferson's statement about natural rights from the Declaration of Independence, that they are "self-evident truths," and I simply say I support the notion.  Which I said, and have said before.  That's not a serviceable "proof," so we move on to question two.

Uh, no, we don't move to question two.  We only move to question two if you DON'T believe that natural rights objectively exist, which you just stated you do.

Can't follow simple instructions, smh.

[Van Cruncheon]

No, they exist because they do.

And then you asked to demonstrate why it's important that they exist, or at least why we proceed as such.

so you ARE religious!

[Barry Egan]

No, they exist because they do.

How can you ever maintain the pretense of rational discussion after saying something like this?  You can't.  Everything you say on the internet from this point forward is tribal nonsense.

[Human Snorenado]

I'm also pretty sure that unicorns exist because I want them to, Jaydubya.

But they don't.  Furthermore, to the second line, there's no benefit to proceeding as though they do.

I've never seen a natural right.  Nor a unicorn.  There you go.

[Barry Egan]

The basis of your argumentation is that society has granted you the right to argue.  It would be one thing if you were just some Burke-ian traditionalist who believed in the importance of American conventions and recognized them for what they were...But no, you are actually a bonified crazy person!

[Barry Egan]

Needing validation from some imagined transcendent authority is your crazy-person prerequisite, not ours.

[brawndolicious]

By natural right, do you mean something that SHOULD end up making for an ideal society (ie: free speech).  Or do you mean something that is actually hardwired into all of us that we all feel a completely unconscious need to strive for (ie: making babies)?

If it's the first one, then obviously people have different opinions on it that they form by logically taking in different subjective and anecdotal factors on human behavior.  Behavior that varies depending on survival needs and parental input and whatnot.  You can't just assume that you have all the factors necessary for making a perfect philosophy that will work the best for everyone, unless you are an extremely devout, religious person.  Which is the majority of the world and so the fact that you think the majority of the world uses the same logic that you do, could be what makes you think that certain rights just are supposed to be.

I don't know.  I guess the most important question now is how you first learned that natural rights exist.  If somebody was going to do an action that you've never heard of and never imagined before, by what objective standard could you decide if it is right or wrong beforehand?

[Van Cruncheon]

how's that work? being sentient magically keeps people from killing you?

[Van Cruncheon]

hence, we make laws to embody popular social contracts. it doesn't mean those "rights" exist beyond a society in its given time, place, and context. your belief that folks have a right to live is a product of your participation and indoctrination in the society you live in. if you were born in borneo in the 1500s, you'd be killing babies and women and the infirm along with the best of 'em, and you wouldn't feel even a whit of guilt, because, to you, it'd be the right thing to do.

cultural relativism sucks, but wotcha gonna do?

[Boogie]

I'm also pretty sure that unicorns exist because I want them to, Jaydubya.

But they don't.  Furthermore, to the second line, there's no benefit to proceeding as though they do.

THE SECOND LINE IS ONLY RELEVANT IF YOU BELIEVE NATURAL RIGHTS "DON'T" EXIST OBJECTIVELY OUTSIDE THE CONVENTIONS OF....

oh, fuck it, I'll just join in the laugh-fest at this:

No, they exist because they do.

 

[Mandark]

Boogie:  I know, right?

I was gonna try to explain it (and maybe the concept of conditional sentences) but then he posted the "exist because they do" line, and I figured it would have a bigger comic effect if I let it sit there and marinate.

[Boogie]

I don't know, I think there's a pretty good case to be made for the idea that sentience grants you the right to not be killed, not be enslaved and to basically pursue your own goals as long as they don't fuck with other people's shit.

Fucking bingo?

If it's that simple, why didn't you explain it like that, rather than make yourself look like some embarrassing caricature? 

Alternatively, hey look, a sane person that doesn't believe so hard in mob rule politics that they think ethics should be run the same way.

lolz, GS as a sane person on this forum. 

(I actually have an inclination to give you a respectful and earnest reply on the current topic, but this is just too fun/easy right now .  And it's 5 am here and I should be in my fucking bed)

[Mandark]

"I could put forth a brilliant argument for my case, but now isn't the time.  Rather, I'm going to make myself look like a doofus, then get mad at people for letting me do it."

[Mandark]

Once again, dude, you're the one who's asserting a set of metaphysical certainties.  If you can't understand how that saddles you with the burden of proof, I don't think I can explain it to you.

I mean, shit.  None of the Christians who ever proselytized to me had the chutzpah to say "God exists cause he does" then complain that I wasn't contributing to my own conversion.

[The Fake Shemp]

That's because Mandark is logical.

[Crushed]

They exist because they do.

add this to the news cycle, this is better than yaere is th

[Boogie]

They exist because they do.

add this to the news cycle, this is better than yaere is th

yes

[Human Snorenado]

They exist because they do.

add this to the news cycle, this is better than yaere is th

MAKE IT HAPPEN

ALSO LEPER WILLCO

[recursivelyenumerable]

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

Proofs that p

Davidson's proof that p:
Let us make the following bold conjecture: p

Wallace's proof that p:
Davidson has made the following bold conjecture: p

Grunbaum:
As I have asserted again and again in previous publications, p.

Putnam:
Some philosophers have argued that not-p, on the grounds that q. It would be an interesting exercise to count all the fallacies in this "argument". (It's really awful, isn't it?) Therefore p.

Rawls:
It would be nice to have a deductive argument that p from self- evident premises. Unfortunately I am unable to provide one. So I will have to rest content with the following intuitive considerations in its support: p.

Unger:
Suppose it were the case that not-p. It would follow from this that someone knows that q. But on my view, no one knows anything whatsoever. Therefore p. (Unger believes that the louder you say this argument, the more persuasive it becomes).

Katz:
I have seventeen arguments for the claim that p, and I know of only four for the claim that not-p. Therefore p.
...

[Flannel Boy]

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

 


Plato:

    SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?

    GLAUCON: I agree.
    CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
    POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
    THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
    ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
    PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.
    ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly.
    ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
    PHAEDO: By all means.
    PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.

[Barry Egan]

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

 


Plato:

    SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?

    GLAUCON: I agree.
    CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
    POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
    THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
    ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
    PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.
    ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly.
    ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
    PHAEDO: By all means.
    PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.

mob rule wins again

[brawndolicious]

JD, you're saying that natural rights are an intangible, philosophical thing and that the way that you define them relies entirely on your own opinion, right?

But you also said that natural rights are the ONLY way that anybody can objectively determine if something is right or wrong (w/holocaust comparison).

Like I said, maybe the logic that you use to form your beliefs on right and wrong is similar to most every other human but the facts that you get will of course be different and you'll form a subjective worldview on morality.  In some places, not planting your lawn with St. Augustine grass might make people as mad as if you raped their mother in another part of the world.  Obviously, most differences in moral beliefs aren't that large but it does show that your insistence that natural rights are set in stone and are infallible is incorrect.  It's just your own opinion, dude.

[brawndolicious]

well who cares really?  being able to smoke weed isn't going to dramatically increase anybody's quality of life so just wait another few years and let the actually important bills go through first.