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

[The Fake Shemp]

This happened today at another town hall:

The man also tells [Senator Chuck] Grassley that people should be concerned because Obama is “acting like a little Hitler,” and that he would solve the problem by taking his gun to Washington, D.C., “if enough of you will go with me.”

... They're just people with opposing viewpoints, right?

Also, if you Google "Obama + Nazi" you get 7 million hits, whereas only 2.8 million with Dubya.

[Oblivion]

Also, if you Google "Obama + Nazi" you get 7 million hits, whereas only 2.8 million with Dubya.

Well, Nazi did stand for National Socialist party after all. Just sayin....

[Van Cruncheon]

It blows my mind that people function like this.

I mean, I'm all for opposing view points - certainly I do not see eye-to-eye with a number of you (Mandark included) - but there must be a place where ideology meets reality, right?

To more and more people (COUGH) I'm beginning to believe that having an ideology is more important than dealing with reality.

we call that identity politics

[Dickie Dee]

Also, if you Google "Obama + Nazi" you get 7 million hits, whereas only 2.8 million with Dubya.

Well, Nazi did stand for National Socialist party after all. Just sayin....

The funniest thing is that Bush=Hitler was only ever deliverd by Anonmyous people onto an open contest and once seen was taken down, while Moveon got branded as some form of modern terrorist group. Meanwhile, Nazi comparisons are continually being made against Obama by the ringleaders of the modern right without any repurcussion...I'm not sure weither I should just sigh or look for a doughy face to punch.

[Human Snorenado]

Ted Kennedy has died.

[Mandark]

While I respect what you're saying to some extent Mandark, "when you subsidize something, you get more of it."

As long as our welfare state is as large as it is (and some *cough* want it to get bigger), all we do is encourage more people to cross over and be a drain.  Maybe you have the luxury of not living in a state where that matters, but I don't.

Three points:

1)  If only you had lived it, then you'd understand I was right.  La de dah.  The metro area and Congressional district I live in have higher proportions of residents born outside the US than, oh, Texas.  You ride the Q2 through Wheaton and tell me how sheltered I am.

2)  I'm not buying that immigrants are a "drain" because of the welfare state, and it's absurd to imply that they come here with the intention of becoming one.  Immigrants skew towards working-age and those desiring to work (the main economic concern is that they'll drive down wages by competing for jobs ferchrissakes).

It's weird how you're treating The Welfare State like a black box which mysteriously converts the money of the rich into the money of the poor.  You could at least cite some actual, real-life programs by which the immigrant population siphons off wealth.  The reality is that most social spending goes towards the elderly, and immigration is a boon for that.  Ask any economist who's had to model Social Security's long-term prospects, and they'll tell you that immigration makes the program more solvent, not less.


3)  This is the important one, and I was kind of trolling you into your response so I could make this point.

You're not against immigration per se.  You're against the welfare state, and open borders would make it easier for certain people to apply for and receive government subsidies.

So, as a remedy to this problem, you're okay with a separate branch of the government arresting and deporting those people and telling them where they ought not live (which is essentially a whole continent).  Not just the people who are draining the system, but a whole swath of people you think are more statistically likely to do so.

Well hell.  Our government gives out agricultural, fossil fuel, nuclear, aviation, automotive, timber, and construction subsidies.  What if a government agency started cracking down on people who started businesses (or were more likely to start businesses) in those industries?

Tlderly are far and away the biggest personal "drains" on our tax dollars, through Medicare and Social Security.  If the FBI started shipping off mee-maw and pop-pop, would you say "I'm not against senior citizens in general, and I'd much rather do away with the welfare state so they could stay.  But as long as it persists, it's probably better to ship them away before they can incur such outrageous costs.  Maybe you have the luxury of not being surrounded by doddering old geezers, but I don't."



edit:

Ted Kennedy has died.

Well, shit.

[Human Snorenado]

I wonder if the Mass. legislature can pass a bill now that will let Gov. Patrick appoint a replacement before the special election in the next five months or so, or if passing it post mortem would disqualify it from taking effect.  At the very least, if they did so I pretty much guarantee you that some Republican would sue to keep the appointee from being seated.

[Mandark]

[youtube=560,345]ydHc-ExClqw[/youtube]

[youtube=560,345]5WQxM-PT5RQ[/youtube]

[youtube=560,345]1VPOAwtzHco[/youtube]

[youtube=560,345]daE6AG51wH4[/youtube]



Awesome 1980 DNC speech by Kennedy, in which he takes the hatchet to Reagan (who gets quoted as calling the New Deal fascist) and brings the old-timey liberalism.  The bit at 6:42 in the second video about the poor always gets me a little.

He had plenty faults, and the Kennedy mystique is vastly overrated, but he was consistently committed to a liberal idea of fairness for several decades, and that's worth something.

[The Fake Shemp]

It'd be interesting to see what angle the politicians take with the passing of Ted Kennedy. Could it be a game changer?

[Van Cruncheon]

While I respect what you're saying to some extent Mandark, "when you subsidize something, you get more of it."

As long as our welfare state is as large as it is (and some *cough* want it to get bigger), all we do is encourage more people to cross over and be a drain.  Maybe you have the luxury of not living in a state where that matters, but I don't.

Three points:

1)  If only you had lived it, then you'd understand I was right.  La de dah.  The metro area and Congressional district I live in have higher proportions of residents born outside the US than, oh, Texas.  You ride the Q2 through Wheaton and tell me how sheltered I am.

2)  I'm not buying that immigrants are a "drain" because of the welfare state, and it's absurd to imply that they come here with the intention of becoming one.  Immigrants skew towards working-age and those desiring to work (the main economic concern is that they'll drive down wages by competing for jobs ferchrissakes).

It's weird how you're treating The Welfare State like a black box which mysteriously converts the money of the rich into the money of the poor.  You could at least cite some actual, real-life programs by which the immigrant population siphons off wealth.  The reality is that most social spending goes towards the elderly, and immigration is a boon for that.  Ask any economist who's had to model Social Security's long-term prospects, and they'll tell you that immigration makes the program more solvent, not less.


3)  This is the important one, and I was kind of trolling you into your response so I could make this point.

You're not against immigration per se.  You're against the welfare state, and open borders would make it easier for certain people to apply for and receive government subsidies.

So, as a remedy to this problem, you're okay with a separate branch of the government arresting and deporting those people and telling them where they ought not live (which is essentially a whole continent).  Not just the people who are draining the system, but a whole swath of people you think are more statistically likely to do so.

Well hell.  Our government gives out agricultural, fossil fuel, nuclear, aviation, automotive, timber, and construction subsidies.  What if a government agency started cracking down on people who started businesses (or were more likely to start businesses) in those industries?

Tlderly are far and away the biggest personal "drains" on our tax dollars, through Medicare and Social Security.  If the FBI started shipping off mee-maw and pop-pop, would you say "I'm not against senior citizens in general, and I'd much rather do away with the welfare state so they could stay.  But as long as it persists, it's probably better to ship them away before they can incur such outrageous costs.  Maybe you have the luxury of not being surrounded by doddering old geezers, but I don't."



edit:

Ted Kennedy has died.

Well, shit.

federal welfare programs are drop in the bucket compared to interest on the national debt, ss, medicare, and especially the military. hell, state welfare programs are drop in the bucket compared to education and even state pension plans. welfare is a stupid libertarian/rural bugbear because it's an emotional thing: it's a conflation of the silly paleoamerican ideal of the rugged bootstrapper and plain ol' biblical envy-turned-righteousness that results in this preposterous emphasis on dem poors/mescans buying hd teevees on mah dollar. manipulative media rimjobbers like limbaugh love to exploit this fear, though, because it plays right into the greased-slope fear-fantasies of the jaydubya crowd; fear of a world where all their precious precious stuff is taken and given away by blacksuited government thugs, and worse yet: given to thankless hobos, sneering hippies, and smirking brownskins.

then again, that's why free market capitalism is just another sad religion: heaven, nirvana, the eternal sublime, whatever -- in their case, it's property and capital. the meaning of life? acquisition. the great satan? redistribution, even in the tiniest of margins. laissez-faire is la raison d'etre, and dirty gladhanding libruls are apostates, denying god.

[Stoney Mason]

It'd be interesting to see what angle the politicians take with the passing of Ted Kennedy. Could it be a game changer?

We'll have to see what Glen Beck says first.

[Phoenix Dark]

Wow, just heard about Kennedy. RIP

[Van Cruncheon]

glenn beck sez: don't sleep easy, folks! this is what the socialists want, you to sleep easy, knowing that the beast has fallen. but let me tell you, reichsfuhrer emanuel rahm and his modern ahnenerbe in the white house are gonna bring him back, now with the power of lucifer himself, commanding an army six hundred sixty-six demonic unionized acorn workers to steal our freedoms...and our souls!

[Mandark]

I gotta defend JayDubya a bit here.

FoC may have arrived at his philosophy via cultural resentment, blinkered selfishness and the Ron Paul cult of personality, but JD got there through a sort of geek hyper-literalism.  It's an optimistic, sci-fi version of libertarianism that relies on believing in a clean, textbook version of humanity rather than the one the rest of us live in.

[Van Cruncheon]

so explain his asthmatic response to abortions

or am i thinking of apf?

[Human Snorenado]

No, you're thinking of JayDubya.  And I think he views it as pretty much the equivalent of murder.

[Van Cruncheon]

which isn't exactly an optimistic sci-fi view

[Mandark]

so explain his asthmatic response to abortions

or am i thinking of apf?

Like I said, geek hyper-literalism!  He's assigning humanity on a weirdly narrow physical criteria, rather than empathy as most of us practice it:  a blastocyst already has a full set of DNA, ergo it's a unique human and gets all of those sweet, sweet Natural Rights.

Unlike most anti-abortioners, who care as part of a larger program to control the nation's vaginas, I really don't think he uses biological arguments as a fig leaf.  It's pretty much his entire spiel, and he doesn't go off on tangents about women "taking responsibility" or any of the usual misogynistic giveaways.

He's kinda like Roissy.  They both want a worldview that gives them absolute certitude and clear lines of battle, and they both try to use science (horribly bastardized evo-psych in Roissy's case) to show that their beliefs are really axiomatic facts.

[Van Cruncheon]

well, certitude of that variety is defined best by dogma!

[Mandark]

Well yeah, JD's dogmatic as hell.  Everything's black and white and inarguable.

I'm defending him from are the heavier charges of racism and misanthropy, and am pleading cluelessness on his behalf.  FoC's got a history of rants against Muslims, immigrants, and snooty intellectuals who didn't like the SW prequels.  JD's just someone who's read about the planet Earth but has never been.

[Dickie Dee]

glenn beck sez: don't sleep easy, folks! this is what the socialists want, you to sleep easy, knowing that the beast has fallen. but let me tell you, reichsfuhrer emanuel rahm and his modern ahnenerbe in the white house are gonna bring him back, now with the power of lucifer himself, commanding an army six hundred sixty-six demonic unionized acorn workers to steal our freedoms...and our souls!

To be fair to Beck, he said that about Ted Kennedy while he was still alive.

I gotta defend JayDubya a bit here.

FoC may have arrived at his philosophy via cultural resentment, blinkered selfishness and the Ron Paul cult of personality, but JD got there through a sort of geek hyper-literalism.  It's an optimistic, sci-fi version of libertarianism that relies on believing in a clean, textbook version of humanity rather than the one the rest of us live in.

Oh shit, is that the JayDubya abortion signal I see against the clouds?

[Mandark]

You said that the government should be allowed to detain and deport people born outside the US, on the grounds that they are likely to cost the government money.

Is this or is it not a fair paraphrase of your position?

[Dickie Dee]

I'm just looking forward to gov't is ipso facto bad types to welcome the new Dept. of Utero Security that'll be responsible for constantly monitoring the vaginas of the half the population that were born with said organs.

[Mandark]

By "on the grounds" I meant the grounds for your support of the policy, not the grounds for their individual arrests.

So, by "is a bad idea," you mean you'd oppose it?

Cause opposing an open border policy is endorsing the government's ability to detain and deport people, using the threat of force, who have not committed any crimes other than entering the country.

That's deliberately strong language, but it's an accurate description of what constitutes immigration control.

[Mandark]

Yes yes.  I know it's the current law and I know people should expect the law as it exists to be enforced blah blah blah.  Completely different subject.

The point is, do you think the current law is fair?  Do you support keeping it in place?  Do you support, as long as there's a "welfare state" in the US, a restrictive immigration policy?

You bitch about stuff that's codified into law all the time.  I try to actually read and respond to your opinions rather than just tell you "well who cares what you think.  It's the law."  I'd love it if you could return the favor.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

BTW, "being made to go back to the other side" makes it sound like a game of Red Rover.  What they're doing is taking someone out of the place that person has decided is their home and telling them they can't come back.  They are doing this hopefully without violence, but if the person does not comply then violence is what they'll use.

Plus, isn't free movement covered by those natural rights?

[close]

[Mandark]

Okay.  So you support a policy of limiting immigration.  And the basis for supporting this policy is that immigrants would be likely to cost the government money.

Is that a fair paraphrase of your position?

[Mandark]

It's not a dance.  I'm trying to understand you precisely and accurately.  For someone who spends most of his time getting flamed, I figured you might appreciate it a bit.

But you assume I'm just doing internet poste-riposte and setting you up for a zinger.  Fine.  But if you actually believe what you say and have confidence in your beliefs, then you shouldn't be scared of stating them clearly and clarifying something when asked.

[Brehvolution]

Damn. You guys are up early or up way too late.

[Van Cruncheon]

But no, I don't see how you can support the legality of what is, objectively, aggressive homicide.

oh oh oh oh i'll bite. "objectively" -- el oh el. homicide is a subjective term! at some point, each individual decides to ascribe human qualities to what is, at all stages, a collection of biological tissue; of amino acids and proteins and chemical reactions. if a "man" is simply n cells with a certain dna/rna sequence, then masturbation is genocide. there is no objective definition of a human being that does not, at some point, involve the empathic mechanism, and is thus entirely subjective.

[twerd]

masturbation is genocide

imma pour one out for those suckers. jaydubya, are you pro-government aided homicide (A SOCIALIST INSTITUTION), also known as capital punishment?

[Phoenix Dark]

is there a way to masturbate but make up for it by purchasing whatever life equivalent there is to carbon credits?

[The Fake Shemp]

But no, I don't see how you can support the legality of what is, objectively, aggressive homicide.

oh oh oh oh i'll bite. "objectively" -- el oh el. homicide is a subjective term! at some point, each individual decides to ascribe human qualities to what is, at all stages, a collection of biological tissue; of amino acids and proteins and chemical reactions. if a "man" is simply n cells with a certain dna/rna sequence, then masturbation is genocide. there is no objective definition of a human being that does not, at some point, involve the empathic mechanism, and is thus entirely subjective.

NO PROLE DON'T DO IT, IT'S A TRA-

... Oh no, Prole. What have you done?

[Human Snorenado]

I don't ascribe the term "living human being" to anyone whose phone number I don't have.  You just don't matter other wise.

[The Fake Shemp]

[Oblivion]

Game over.       A sperm cell is not an organism. 

Pretty sure it is.

[Van Cruncheon]

But no, I don't see how you can support the legality of what is, objectively, aggressive homicide.

oh oh oh oh i'll bite.

Oh oh oh.  Let's see you try.

"objectively" -- el oh el. homicide is a subjective term!

Actually, no.  Neither "aggressive" nor "homicide" are open for subjective interpretation.  The subjectivity comes in the form of restrictive legal "personhood," which is where the state apparently gets to determine which human beings are expendable subhuman property.

Just so we're clear, which objectively true fact are you denying, the aggressive part or the homicide part?  I mean, to reject either would be utterly wrong, but I don't want to waste time on the one you've already conceded so we can get to the part where you concede the other one or just resort to petty namecalling.

at some point, each individual decides to ascribe human qualities to what is, at all stages, a collection of biological tissue; of amino acids and proteins and chemical reactions.

Uh-huh.  I ascribe the term "living human being" to that which is, objectively, a living human being.

if a "man" is simply n cells with a certain dna/rna sequence, then masturbation is genocide.

Game over.       A sperm cell is not an organism.  Go to back to intro Biology.  Your opinion on this is mired in too much ignorance to be valid.

"Empathic mechanism"l

well, i had to start at the very foundations of your assumptions. step two: do you think that all organisms are human beings?

[The Fake Shemp]

At one point, can we bring up the fact that a dog has the same mental and emotional capacity as a toddler.

[BlackMage]

speaking of which does a female's (or male's  ) attractiveness influence the tip amount? does for me.. show me your boobs for extra $$$

[Oblivion]

Game over.       A sperm cell is not an organism.  

Pretty sure it is.

Perhaps you have orgasm and organism confused.

In biology, an organism is any living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs.

[Van Cruncheon]

step three, then: assuming that we are agreed that all organisms are not human, what objective qualities define a human organism?

[Flannel Boy]

speaking of which does a female's (or male's  ) attractiveness influence the tip amount? does for me.. show me your boobs for extra $$$

Nah, I tip around 15% and only vary the amount based on the quality of service. Don't want to appear creepy creepier than I am.

[Crushed]

truth, justice, and the american way

[Van Cruncheon]

looks like superman doesn't have time for white and blue any more, if you know what i mean

[Oblivion]

lies, INinjustice, and the soviet way

more like

[BlackMage]

you know krypton had socialized health-care too. look what happened there.

[The Fake Shemp]

you know krypton had socialized health-care too. look what happened there.

This may be the funniest thing you've ever said.

[Flannel Boy]

Something is a thing or is it not. 

Humans tend to develop quite a bit from the time they're zygotes.

If we have an organism that is it the offspring of homo sapiens, through conventional sexual reproduction, or even the oh-so-prevalent-in-science-fiction-but-not-yet-realized-in-real-humans cloning, or some other means - that organism is a member of our species.

But why should human blastocysts or human fetuses--which do not posses consciousness, emotions, reason, or self-awareness--receive the same legal protection from the state as you or Drinky? And why should the state force women to carry them to term?

[Flannel Boy]

Second of all, a living human being is a living human being.  Said "legal protection" is provided on the basis of a recognition of rights; if said human rights are inherent and unalienable - a core value of the American state - then they are present for all living human beings.

There are some important differences between you and a blastocyst, differences that are important in determining whether you should both have the same rights and protections.

Does the state force me to not shoot up the local liquor store?  Do you honestly consider that coercive?

No, but I would find it coercive if the state forced me to be a host for an organism that was incapable of feeling pain, experiencing consciousness, or having memories.

[Human Snorenado]

Jaydubya, can I ask you about the tyranny of circumcision?

[Flannel Boy]

Not really.  One is a living human being.  The other is a living human being.

This isn't going anywhere; I'm going to finish my short story.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

An abortion debate?

Nuke the thread before it gets worse.

[Van Cruncheon]

step three, then: assuming that we are agreed that all organisms are not human, what objective qualities define a human organism?

What objective qualities define a human organism?

Heh.  A human organism is what not-human-organisms are not.  It is intrinsically human organism-y.   

Okay, I'll try that again, with less condescending silliness.

Unless you or I are that rare case of mutation / speciation that breaks the mold, if you or I am a living organism, and our respective parents are Homo sapiens, we are Homo sapiens.  We are not capable of bearing the young of any other species.  We do not have half-elves and half-orcs and centaurs running around.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.  Something is a thing or is it not.  If we have an organism that is it the offspring of homo sapiens, through conventional sexual reproduction, or even the oh-so-prevalent-in-science-fiction-but-not-yet-realized-in-real-humans cloning, or some other means - that organism is a member of our species.

Which returns us back to the reflexive property, unfortunately.  What makes a living organism objectively human is that it is, objectively, a living human organism.


The only way I can parse what you're going for is that you're still hung up on DNA alone.

no semantic games, here. you brought objectivity into the argument. please enumerate the basic objective criteria by which we can consider something a "human being". saying homo sapiens without being able to articulate what homo sapiens is objectively might as well be you shrugging and going "dna" yourself.

[Human Snorenado]

Never mind all this tired old argument shit.  Let's get to the new hottness:  the tyranny of circumcision.

[Human Snorenado]

KNEW IT.  I swear to Jesus (who I don't even believe in, by the by) that if your ideology told you boats were agents of tyranny to your personal right to drown, you would gladly drown.

[Crushed]

being aggressive homicide, should women who have abortions be arrested for murder and receive the same sentences?

[Human Snorenado]

being aggressive homicide, should women who have abortions be arrested for murder and receive the same sentences?

We've played this game so many times I can answer for him: "Yes, and so should the doctors who perform the abortions."

[Crushed]

being aggressive homicide, should women who have abortions be arrested for murder and receive the same sentences?

We've played this game so many times I can answer for him: "Yes, and so should the doctors who perform the abortions."

well at least he's consistently evil

[Human Snorenado]

being aggressive homicide, should women who have abortions be arrested for murder and receive the same sentences?

We've played this game so many times I can answer for him: "Yes, and so should the doctors who perform the abortions."

well at least he's consistently evil

It's not evil to lock someone up for putting into practice their wanton disregard for human life.  It's both punishment and prevention.

So you would support prosecuting the former Secretary of Defense, Vice President and President of the United States as war criminals then?

[Crushed]

their wanton disregard for human life

irony-meter-explode.gif

[Crushed]

It's both punishment and prevention.

damn sluts, i'll teach you to be raped or have a life-threatening pregnancy