There's so much talk about about the photo, and my post is drawing so much traffic from various blogs — the kind that try to disqualify me as drunk/stupid — that I have to conclude this criticism — it's hardly even a criticism, more of an observation — really hurt.
Here's Andrew Sullivan:
Glenn Reynolds finds a photo in the White House Flickr basket...Flickr basket? Sullivan either doesn't know what things are called, or he's inventing a phrase to create the impression that the White House dumps all manner of images onto its public Flickr page without much thought. In fact, the White House Flickr page — which I check almost daily — gets — I would say — an average of one new photo a day — maybe 2 — and the photos are clearly chosen to flatter President Obama. I have zero doubt that if there is a photo there, the White House believes it presents the President in an excellent light.
... and publishes it to, er, point out how bad the White House's p.r. is, or how blind they are to perceptions of Obama or some such thing.Yes, exactly. It's obvious and it's easy to understand. Acting out a pretense of having difficulty understanding is hammy.
I tried to puzzle this one out and can just about see how an elusive photo of a tired Obama reacting to something unknowable might make him look tired or arrogant or something.
And then I realized why this photo immediately strikes some people are [sic] damning. Obama is a black man who looks as if he is condescending to a white man. That's political gold.It's political gold against Sullivan. And I don't just mean because he played the race card with so little provocation. It's damaging to Sullivan because the way he arrived at the racial interpretation was entirely by searching around in his own brain. He thought and he thought — he puzzled — and then he realized what looked bad to "some people." Some people? But that was you seeing that, Andrew! What you see is what you see. How much alienation from one's own thoughts there must be that you would expose your own racism like that!
If you think that's unfair, then take it as a lesson in fairness.
Posts
340 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 340 of 340"...really? So the Tea Bag movement started earlier than is widely known?
There were no protests demanding that RINO's be romoved from office before 2006."
Are people really this unaware that they can look at the rise of the Tea Party movement and NOT associate the economic crash with it on their little political timeline? I suppose the economic crash is just an insignificant little blip that influenced nothing and certainly didn't influence a group that took their name from a revolt against paying for other people's excess.
Egad.
You were alive for the last year and a half, right phos?
Goebbels had a doctorate, for example.
He also admired Sanger and the eugencists, liberals all.
This column--really a reprint of a speech--reflects some of the debate among conservative types earlier in the aughts and [accurately, I think] points out that the debate has been ongoing, despite assertions [from whomever] to the contrary.
Personally, I'd skim over the snark and anecdotal parts in the top part of the piece and start at A few quick facts. George W. Bush has:, but suit yourself.
From a discussion on cleveland.com:
"Don't play the race card. People like you just perpetuate the problem."
That was in response to me replying to someone who claimed that black people don't contribute to society. Go figure.
He also admired Sanger and the eugencists, liberals all.
Hitler was a Catholic.
Boy, those Nazis sure loved liberals!
The Racial Question and World Propaganda
Both in theory and practice, National Socialism opposes liberalism.
It's complete intellectual laziness is what it is.
There need be no attempt whatsoever to understand a different point of view or different concerns, indeed there ARE no different points of view or concerns... there is only racism.
Lazy is what it is.
And yes, it does reveal racism when someone sees racism rather than a different political or economic philosophy. The lack of ability to so much as imagine a different political or economic philosophy retards any progress a "progressive" might otherwise make. They are demonstrably stuck in time, stuck with an obsession with skin color and heritage.
It's sad.
This picture...I think it is, as someone said, talked about because it is FUN. Light hearted snark. But not serious. (Did anyone notice the picture of Obama up at Drudge? Not looking down his nose but forehead jutted agressively forward... just like I said yesterday... and looking over his sun glasses?)
But the objections, over and over and over, are framed as personal attacks on conservatives who apparently suffer from mass psychosis inferiority complexes (if you don't agree that you are inferior you have an inferiority complex!) or they are racist but mostly they just don't think about anything at all or *obviously* they'd see, and agree with, the ONE TRUE TRUTH of the world, which isn't liberalism, and certainly not classical liberalism, but progressivism and the glory of all the wonders of wealth redistribution.
All of this while someone whom no one could POSSIBLY have a legitimate disagreement with, shares a venue with Robert Mugabe, defends the "democratic" destruction of a nation's constitution, and ignores confiscations of property and closings of radio stations by a government that is now, through progressive redistribution (is this *liberal?* I think not!) of resources is now reduced to rationing electricity.
And there is silence.
Silence from liberals who ought to, by their own principles, be defending freedom, speech, individuality and *yes* property rights, and economic and legal equality, but they've been taken over by progressives pushing something that is anti-freedom, and anti-speech, and anti-economic equality in the name of *fairness*.
There was a time when difference of opinion was valued and people were expected to have a wide range of contrary views.
Now, if you do, you're a racist.
Thanks, reader, for doing the heavy lifting.
Most people ought to remember well enough that Bush didn't run as a conservative in 2000. He ran as a moderate.
There were no protests demanding that RINO's be romoved from office before 2006.
I'm sure you mean protests literally here--rallies and such with signs and so forth, so perhaps the following won't interest you:
As I recall it (and am sure I can document it), there was some vociferous in at least some conserative quarters and outlets for the candidacy of Pat Toomey in hopes that he would defeat Arlen Specter in 2004. This reflected a longer term** dissatisfaction with and frustration over Specter's RINO ways.
**I feel very comfortable using this term, because in the late '80s early 90s I was journalist in what was then a quite Republican county in PA, and I heard with my own ears plenty of debates over moderate Republicanism in general and complaints about Specter in particular.
Funniest/saddest Sullivan line of the day:
"Coverage of Palin's custody battle against Tripp's baby-daddy here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here."
. . . with each "here" referring to a post on his own website.
Hitler was a Catholic.
That's not just wrong, it's damned wrong.
Hitler hated Christianity. He couldn't get around the problem posed by the fact that - here it comes - Jesus was a Jew
That's why the Nazis tried, among other things, to kill Christmas' association with...Christianity:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-the-nazis-stole-christmas-1846365.html
Now, if you do, you're a racist.
Indeed. How does it feel to be a teabagging lunatic who rambles on and on with paragraph after paragraph that no one is going to actually read?
Both in theory and practice, National Socialism opposes liberalism.
Classical liberalism. Which in America is known, of course, as conservatisim.
Nazism it was a leftist ideology. The "Socialism" right there in the name is the tip-off.
Hitler and Stalin hated each other because they were fighting over the same piece of ideological pie.
"At any time, a commentor could have said : The photo isn't worth talking about. let's change the subject. "
Well, if we used that approach there would be no blogs, no chattering classes, no media, no AGW,..., no confusion, no anger, just peace.
Let's try it. You first.
Hitler hated Christianity.
Can you translate the text on this belt buckle for me?
Gott mit uns
Nazism it was a leftist ideology. The "Socialism" right there in the name is the tip-off.
Quite the political scientist, aren't you? I guess Hamburger Helper is made of hamburger!
Boy, those Nazis sure loved liberals!
Didn't Jonah Goldberg spend 5 yrs researching this for his epic book "Liberal Fascism"?
Let's see, Hitler liked marshmallows, marshmallows are contained in granola bars, liberals love granola bars, ergo, all liberals are fascists!
I know what "hope and change" is made of.
"Overseas contingency", I'm still working on, but I'll get it.
You guys are being far too hard on Nazis. They were at least efficient and consistent.
"Indeed. How does it feel to be a teabagging lunatic who rambles on and on with paragraph after paragraph that no one is going to actually read?"
You're a moby aimed at liberals, right?
Because it's not, oh, homophobic or anything to use the term "teabagging" as a "cute" comeback to discredit the opposition. Sort of like how it's not racist to frame every disagreement as about racism.
And no, really, I did not expect YOU to read the entirety of a long post about how progressives are intellectually lazy and generally coercive and illiberal.
From Inwood
Aaack! You got the joke wrong! (IMHO).
The version I know sheds even more light on Sullivan (the old lady).
My version:
Psychiatrist shows ink blot to old lady.
Psychiatrist: And what is this?
Old Lady: Two people having sex.
Psychiatrist shows different ink blot to old lady.
Psychiatrist: And what is this?
Old Lady: Two people having sex.
(repeat several more times).
Psychiatrist: Well, you seem to be pretty obsessed with sex.
Old Lady: Me! Obsessed! You're the one showing all the dirty pictures!
phosphorius wrote: So conservatives see this picture and say that Obama's arrogance (or cluelessness, or incompetence, etc) is obvious. I say it's obvious, if you have an insane need to vindicate Bush.
Am I wrong, wingnuts?
Yes, you are, moonbat. Wrong and delusional. There are very few commenters here who are fans of George Bush.
NRN 312...Is that you Ritmo? You know perfectly well that Hitler was no catholic. Don't confuse these commenters. Der Fuhrer was a high priest of a pagan cult seeking to exterminate the silly slave religions of Jews and christians and replace them with the Strong/Super Man rule. To Hitler the strength was from a egyptian witchcraft power that he believed to come into Aryan descendants from Super Psychics that ruled the world before Abraham and Moses's time. He was dedicating Germany to planned inter breeding of the 2% aryans then living in Nordic lands while protecting them from any interbreeding with the Jews and Christians and slavs who he worked his last ounce of strength to exterminate. That was not Catholic any more than Obama's religion is Christian, although the public was told that in 1932 purely for propaganda reasons.
Didn't Jonah Goldberg spend 5 yrs researching this for his epic book "Liberal Fascism"?
He shouldn't have bothered, Friedrich von Hayek started that canard in Road to Serfdom. Oddly enough, FVH was rather enthusiastic about the Pinochet regime!
Because it's not, oh, homophobic or anything to use the term "teabagging" as a "cute" comeback to discredit the opposition.
Wow, now that's some Decent mindreading!
And no, really, I did not expect YOU to read the entirety of a long post about how progressives are intellectually lazy and generally coercive and illiberal.
I didn't need to read much of your crap to determine that you are delusional. The claim that I was using the teabagging term as some sort of anti-homosexual crack is a good example of that.
And oddly enough, Golberg and the National Review were very sympathetic to the Pinochet regime as well.
Der Fuhrer was a high priest of a pagan cult seeking to exterminate the silly slave religions of Jews and christians [sic] and replace them with the Strong/Super Man rule.
And how many Christians did Hitler kill just for being Christians?
That was not Catholic any more than Obama's religion is Christian, although the public was told that in 1932 purely for propaganda reasons.
And I'm supposed to take you seriously after you imply that Obama is a Muslim?
"Let's see, Hitler liked marshmallows, marshmallows are contained in granola bars, liberals love granola bars, ergo, all liberals are fascists!"
All fascism really means is offering a united front; everyone being on board and going in the same direction jack-booted step by jack-booted step.
Now, obviously, this is antithetical to liberal philosophy.
It does seem to be more or less the liberal reality, though. And if I were you that would piss me off. Who hijacked liberalism, hm?
What happened to the recognition of individuals as unique persons each with their own drummer? What happened to pushing the principle of free speech past the point of pain because of a profound belief in the rightness of it? Who is most likely to recognize only a single drummer these days? Only one legitimate path, only one legitimate drummer, only a single front and everyone working together, even if it is to make the world a better place? Look to government, now, as the greatest good because government has the most power to lift all of the people. Not freedom. Not some esoteric and increasingly meaningless belief in what had been bedrock liberal ideology of human worth and accomplishment, but something powerful enough to do this from outside our own selves, to impose it on us and our neighbors for our own good.
I can see how Goldberg annoyed people by pointing out the coercive nature and coercive history of what has become "liberalism" because those self-identifying as liberals have a different picture of what liberalism is supposed to be.
But you know... that's really not Goldberg's fault.
All fascism really means is offering a united front; everyone being on board and going in the same direction jack-booted step by jack-booted step.
No, that's not true at all. Semicolon alert!
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
"Wow, now that's some Decent mindreading!"
Oh, now you're going to go intentionalist on me?
And this after claiming sure knowledge of other people's motivation?
Heck, *other people* did not even use any terms at all to imply their thoughts were impure, racist or anything else, yet you KNEW what they thought!
And then you actually use a term, right here in black and white, as an attack on me that outright calls on the specter of homosexual sexual practices and I'm not supposed to "read your mind" or impute homophobia to you?
You used the term, purposefully, as a slur but it doesn't reflect on you? Of course it does. Just like when Jeremy is constantly on with the homo-sex invitations, it's all another way of saying "You're a homo. Har, har, har, I said a naughty thing, snicker, snicker."
That you won't own up to it, changes nothing.
No. It's not moronic. It is in fact, the truth. The modern conservative movement largely arose in the late 50's & 60's in the works of Buckley, with one of the first flag bearers being Barry Goldwater.
It was perfectly legitimate at the outset of the New Deal to ask, "why not give added powers and resources to the federal government to do good things with?" Given the state of the economy at the time, it made sense to try something new. There was opposition to it, but there was little substance to the conservative arguments because there wasn't a body of evidence to suggest the New Deal wouldn't deliver what it promised.
Twenty years later, it was a different story. We were out of a Depression, finished with WWII, and yet government kept growing. Naturally, there would be a group of intellectuals who thought it was time to examine the New Deal and its legacy from a critical standpoint and to sketch out modern alternatives to it.
Of course, by that time, the New Deal had congealed into an Establishment, which immediately felt threatened by rising conservatism, and so used their powers to redefine conservatism as reactionary thinking, racism, proto-fascism, what have you. But over the course of the decades, conservatives who weren't scared off by these allegations developed not merely a reaction to the New Deal, but a separate set of principles and a governing philosophy that, with varying degrees of success and competence, they have been trying to implement.
It hasn't been easy, however. Since at least 1968, what's left of the New Deal coalition has been fighting primarily not to expand to defend what FDR and LBJ had built, and to defend it. They have had many subterranean victories via unelected institutions, but in a political sense, they had been fighting a losing battle for 40 years -- until, they thought, the election of Obama finally turned the tide.
In 2008, the voting public had finally embraced New Deal-esque government activism again, it seemed. No Clinton-like defensive crouches and declarations that the era of big government was over or that it needed reinventing. The public wanted a new FDR and Obama would be that historic figure, buoyed by a landslide, his great political gifts, and public's loathing of private sector actors who had ruined the economy.
As we have seen, things have yet to work out the way the left envisioned.
Hence the rage we see from the netroots at each of the moments that call into question Obama's ability to play that role. He can't seem to rally the public to his side as his Democratic predecessors had been able to do. The tea party movement. The Olympic embarrassment. The goofy decision to award him a Nobel Peace Prize. "The system worked."
As each of these events has occurred, the left netroots have gotten nastier and more self-deluded. That's why this thread seems to go on and on, and why there are so many other blog posts trying to marginalize anyone who found it amusing or telling.
The web reaction to this bad photo has crystallized the left's Obama rage. They know it's an unattractive, unappealing photo, but if they concede that, they are conceding either a) another episode of WH staff incompetence, each example of which undermines the case for government activism or b) that Obama is a flawed vessel, too cool, too arrogant, too disconnected. And then there's the more speculative Althouse theory, c) that the photo shows he's so exhausted and unhappy in this job for which he really wasn't prepared, he might not stick around much longer. Each of these are dangerous thoughts that must be shooed away, using whatever tools are closest at hand, including charges of racism.
It is a tempest in a teapot, but some tempests in teapots are more meaningful than others.
What happened to the recognition of individuals as unique persons each with their own drummer? What happened to pushing the principle of free speech past the point of pain because of a profound belief in the rightness of it? Who is most likely to recognize only a single drummer these days? Only one legitimate path, only one legitimate drummer, only a single front and everyone working together, even if it is to make the world a better place?
You have a flair for cliché.
I can see how Goldberg annoyed people by pointing out the coercive nature and coercive history of what has become "liberalism" because those self-identifying as liberals have a different picture of what liberalism is supposed to be.
Goldberg primarily annoys people by being really fucking stupid. Like I said, this Liberal Fascism angle is not new. Hayek floated it while we were still fighting the Nazis.
Betwenn the two popsts, 450 comments!!!
Woo Hoo!!
Good thing the photo was insignifi cant or you all would have shut down blogger with all the traffic!
Hence the rage we see from the netroots at each of the moments that call into question Obama's ability to play that role. He can't seem to rally the public to his side as his Democratic predecessors had been able to do.
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers
Not that it's critically important, but I don't think tea-bagging is necessarily always a homosexual act.
The word, at least by some accounts, comes from the same root for fascia which is the presentation at the front of a building. It fits very well. It generally wasn't thought of as a bad thing for those promoting it. After all, what is bad about not working at cross purposes?
Like communism and progressivism, however, it requires coercion and tyranny because silly people who think they have the right to do their own thing keep on failing to fall into line to work together.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Everyone working together. Every part of society.
How is this not what I said?
NRN 312...There is a similarity in approach of the Nazi Party and of the Muslims to the Jews and to the Christians. As to the Jews, both are told to kill them. As to the Christians they both would offer conversion to the new religion or be killed. So a Christian in a civilian or a religious post got the priviledge of renouncing his faith in exchange for not being killed. Ergo, those who did have courage to remain Christian were killed outright or worked to death in a prisions. The Christians in the German Wermacht were not required to convert because Hitler had other plans for using them and could not YET risk losing their loyalty until the end of the war.
nrn312 said...
I wouldn't point to an FDR quote regarding legs, as he did not have much experience using any.
Well, FDR wouldn't have made much of a conservative since he was only crippled physically, not mentally"
The left's idol, FDR. Racist (wouldn't integrate the military)
Destroyer of private property to drive prices up, power grabber vis a vis supreme court, and extender of the depression.
Regular commie. Now wonder why the modern commies look to him.
The word, at least by some accounts, comes from the same root for fascia which is the presentation at the front of a building.
Decent entomology.
Goldberg primarily annoys people by being really fucking stupid.
You say this in the same comment where you accuse someone of using cliches?
"_________ is really fucking stupid" must be the most frequently-used phrase on netroots blogs, second only to "shut the fuck up." Obviously not a particularly persuasive way to express oneself, but it makes them feel all butchy and stuff. Feelings are the most important thing to these sensitive souls.
There is a similarity in approach of the Nazi Party and of the Muslims to the Jews and to the Christians. As to the Jews, both are told to kill them.
Funny how Baghdad had a significant Jewish population for centuries given that the Muslims are just like Nazis.
"Not that it's critically important, but I don't think tea-bagging is necessarily always a homosexual act."
Technically, this is true.
Neither is anal sex, but call someone a butt f**ker or any variation of that and try to claim that you were obviously just talking about heterosexual anal sex and anyone with sense would laugh at you.
"Oh no! I wasn't AT ALL talking about what homosexuals do like it's perverted! It's only perverted when straights do it! You're just reading my mind and making stuff up!"
Next you'll tell me fisting isn't associated with homosexuals and isn't an implicit call to view homosexuals as perverted if it was used as a personal attack on someone.
When someone uses the term "teabaggers" they are *explicitly* calling on the specter of homosexual perversion as an insult.
That is homophobic... and I don't need to read anyone's mind to know that is what it is.
The sort of masturbatory "Oh, look at that black man condescending the old white dude, *pant* *pant*, you know you want to see that, look at it, rumpled old white Biden and spiffy black *uppity* Obama, you know that's what you see, *moan*... you know you want it baby..."
It's the same disgusting thing.
The people peddling it should own up to the garbage in their own minds.
The left's idol, FDR. Racist (wouldn't integrate the military)
Destroyer of private property to drive prices up, power grabber vis a vis supreme court, and extender of the depression.
Nobody's perfect.
Can you translate the text on this belt buckle for me?
Gott mit uns
God With Us.
It doesn't say which God, however. It doesn't say Christ. It could be Thor or even Loki!!
You say this in the same comment where you accuse someone of using cliches?
No less true for the repetition, but at least I didn't butcher Thoreau!
Neither is anal sex, but call someone a butt f**ker or any variation of that and try to claim that you were obviously just talking about heterosexual anal sex and anyone with sense would laugh at you.
I'd like to offer you the Ann Althouse Chair in Onion Ring Analysis.
I love the way conservatives bitch about how pointing out the pettiness and stupidity of their criticisms is an assault on their free speech, while Obama's staff can't even take a single picture of the president without it being spun as evidence of... well, nothing but propagandistic bullshite.
So, let me get this straight: If conservatives' comments are criticized, that amounts amounts to an abridgment of their speech, but if images of Obama are incessantly criticized and read into like so many palm lines and tea leaves, that's as legitimate a criticism as they come.
Right!
Althouse is a propagandist of Goebbels' caliber. And this post is the equivalent of third grade art appreciation meets Lord of the Flies.
And phosphorius needs to realize just how ridiculous the right is. I'd say they're uncreative, but that would be an insult to third grade art appreciation teachers. What they are is incapable of identifying or defining themselves in any context that doesn't make use of an enemy. They don't know who they are, only who they hate. Once they know who they hate, they know what to be, what to live for, what purpose their lives and their politics serve. Without that, they are like tumbleweed.
They also love to emulate enemies because they provide them with tactics. Cons can't come up with any strategies and tactics that they did not first rip off from the librul and communist and Mooslim and terrrrrist evildoers that done them wrong.
This is seriously the best they can come up with. I guess for power hungry corruption whores, it beats accepting one's powerlessness.
Get therapy. And get a hobby. Get bent, get stoked, get out once in a while get a life and get some fucking perspective already. It's fucking pathetic.
Or volunteer at a soup kitchen and help some of those people whom you see as beneath you. Get some humanity.
It doesn't say which God, however. It doesn't say Christ. It could be Thor or even Loki!!
Context can be important. If you wanted to make an argument that even had a chance of being taken seriously, you could have pointed out that the slogan predated Hitler by centuries.
Ah, Ritmo, you're just mad you missed ALL the fun.
You could have been calling people racist for two whole days already, or explained how illusions of equality are actually proof of inferiority complexes.
Althouse is a propagandist of Goebbels' caliber.
I wouldn't give her that much credit. She just throws red meat to the howler monkeys and acts surprised when she gets called on it.
If you wanted to make an argument that even had a chance of being taken seriously, you could have pointed out that the slogan predated Hitler by centuries.
Then why did you bring it up in conjuction with Hitler as an endorsement that Hilter did not have an antipiathy to Christianity if it had nothing to do with Hitler?
I wasn't making an argument. You asked for a translation and I gave it to you.
Try to stay on topic
It's no longer about racism - let alone your misapprehensions about it, Synova. It's about how you've convinced yourself to believe the ludicrous proposition that racism never existed in this country and was never relevant to American politics after... well, you tell me what the precise date was. Your buffoonery on that is history. Obama doesn't respond to racists or race baiters and provides a better role model for black kids then Clarence Thomas, so that battle is won. You don't realize you lost it so I suppose that, like Civil War aficionados, you will beat your chest with a confusing mix of pride mixed with self-pity about the battle that you lost long ago. And wallow in it. But like the lost cause of Southern pride, the north and the rest of the country has moved on. Enjoy your moments of white self-pity in your spare time and with the other defeatists. They have become irrelevant.
Joe: Listen, Barry, I need to talk to you about your wife.
Then why did you bring it up in conjuction [sic] with Hitler as an endorsement that Hilter [sic] did not have an antipiathy [sic] to Christianity if it had nothing to do with Hitler?
It had a lot to do with Hitler because the Nazis slapped a swastika under it and put it on a belt-buckle.
I wasn't making an argument. You asked for a translation and I gave it to you.
It was a rhetorical question.
Try to stay on topic
Blow me.
"They don't know who they are, only who they hate."
Pot and kettle there.
Someone asked, yesterday, what right-wingers thought of the Obama administrations new airline safety policies of doing extensive searches on all travelers from certain nations of primarily dark complected and often Islamic people (with Cuba thrown in to lighten it up and add some Catholics.) I have no idea what liberals think of this, other than MoDo, who is an idiot. I did find it curious that rather than state an opinion the commenter wanted to know what other people thought first. Do liberals approve?
If so... is approval of this about NOT being against Bush, but being FOR Obama?
I know I read at least one person comment that full body scans (that show intimate detail, very like being naked) were not a *privacy* issue because the TSA would not save the data... does anyone think that any security agency tapping overseas telephone calls kept recordings of calls that weren't suspicious? People talk themselves into anything, and it's all about who you hate. It's not about any notion of privacy or freedom or rights at all.
What beloved principle defended with fire in liberal hearts for the past 8 years is going to survive the Obama administration? Anything?
"It's about how you've convinced yourself to believe the ludicrous proposition that racism never existed in this country and was never relevant to American politics after..."
Straw man much?
Are people really this unaware that they can look at the rise of the Tea Party movement and NOT associate the economic crash with it on their little political timeline?
The Dow plummeted in October, 2008, but the tea party movement didn't start till after Obama was inaugurated. Was the mid-March dip the only crash worth noticing?
And how many Christians did Hitler kill just for being Christians?
Thousands who practiced their Christianity, for example by saving Jews or by preaching the Gospel. Hitler killed millions of Christians for other reasons than their faith, such as their ethnicity.
DBQ: Try to stay on topic
liberal troll: Blow me.
Ha ha ha. :-D
Good response. And sort of on topic. Perhaps THAT was what Obama was thinking in the photo.
It's not a straw man. Either you believe that race was or is relevant to American politics or you engage this nonsense allegation about how Obama uses his race to prevent legitimate criticism of him. That was the biggest straw man there ever was. The only people who relied on it or would have relied on it were corrupt machiavells or ignorant twisted people who actually believed race was not worth acknowledging as a factor in American politics just because they said so!!!! ;-)
Either you believe that race was or is relevant to American politics or you engage this nonsense allegation about how Obama uses his race to prevent legitimate criticism of him
That isn't an either or arguement.
You can believe that race was and possibly still is relevant in politics.
AND you can also believe that Obama uses race as a political tool.
Those are not exclusionary arguments. Both can be true.
I don't see how "blow me" is trolling but directing people to fuck themselves with a frozen carrot (as Dust Bunny Queen has suggested of a certain someone here) is not. Unless, oh yes! It's ok to say that if you're defending an indefensible argument. Ok. Lesson learned.
So, let me get this straight: If conservatives' comments are criticized, that amounts amounts to an abridgment of their speech, but if images of Obama are incessantly criticized and read into like so many palm lines and tea leaves, that's as legitimate a criticism as they come.
Right.
What are you responding to? Is there a conservative on this site who has claimed such a thing? And, aren't you missing the point with respect to this photo? It's not being "incessantly criticized," it's being interpreted in the way any striking image will be. You, obviously, don't like some of the interpretations popping up here and there. But I don't think anyone has said they feel like liberals are suppressing the opinions of conservatives.
What's being clarified for me today and yesterday is how incredibly oversensitive you guys are. To take these speculative interpretations and intended-to-be-humorous comments and twist them into an occasion to probe the right's fascism and racism is just way over the top.
Unfortunately for you, this photo will wind up on one or more of the late-night comedy shows this week, probably tonight. It fits right into the comedy writers' already well-worked meme of Obama being embarrassed by Biden. If the joke is funny enough it might go "viral."
When this happens, will you be able to handle it?
Andrew Sullivan engage in an unfair attack. Well that is like saying Charles Johnson would do it. Impossible.
The two of them are models of journalistic fairness and....
I am just too tired even to be sarcastic. Racism in that photograph of Obama looking bored at Biden? Oh baby Obama, what is wrong with these people.
Those are not exclusionary arguments. Both can be true.
Indeed. And very good. I applaud the nuance. Seriously.
However, only one has evidence. The other - a political motivation for saying so but no evidence.
"I wouldn't give her that much credit. She just throws red meat to the howler monkeys and acts surprised when she gets called on it."
Who are the howler monkeys?
And you think Althouse is surprised when she gets a rise out of you?
I won't dispute the "red meat" theory, but honestly you guys, it gets a predictable rise out of you as much as it does anyone on the "right" or anyone else.
Honestly, seriously, my comments on this picture were to disagree that Obama looked tired, disagree that he'd *ever* give up running for re-election, how silly!, and to say that my interpretation of the picture (arrogance) was a Rorschach sort of reaction and I wished people who didn't know who he was and didn't have preconceptions could be found to see what they thought.
OH MY EFFING DOG!
Red meat... for whom? All the O-bot leaping to his defense? All the O-bots blowing the whole thing way past what anyone really thought of it? Andy Sullivan or anyone else who thinks that "hey this picture of Obama makes him look tired" needs some ulterior and sinister motivation by people who could have no other *possible* objection to Obama than mindless racism?
Althouse may throw meat, but I wouldn't be too smug about who she is throwing it *to*.
She's an equal opportunity meat thrower. NTTAWWT
I don't see how "blow me" is trolling
It isn't. The blow me part was the only honest and representational thing posted by nrnwhatever so far.
All the preceeding posts by nrnwhatever WAS troll bait. You guys really need to get a better handle on this trolling and sock puppet stuff if you want to keep up.
Thousands who practiced their Christianity, for example by saving Jews or by preaching the Gospel. Hitler killed millions of Christians for other reasons than their faith, such as their ethnicity.
The point I was making is that Hitler didn't kill people just for being Christians. There certainly were many people killed for acting in what I would consider a Christian manner. However, Hitler did kill millions of Jews just for being Jews.
Who are the howler monkeys?
Look in the mirror.
And you think Althouse is surprised when she gets a rise out of you?
Unlike you, I'm not an Internet mind-reader.
All the O-bot [sic] leaping to his defense? All the O-bots blowing the whole thing way past what anyone really thought of it?
"You stupid libs don't have a sense of humor."
"Men who cannot divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are holy and matters of belief to others, once and for all, do not belong in the SS." Heinrich Himmler, Reichsfuhrer-SS, Second only to Adolph Hitler in the Third Reich, quoted by Ernst Christian Helmreich in The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue, p. 218.
Hitler Youth Camp Song
We are the happy Hitler youth;
We have no need of Christian virtue;
For Adolph Hitler is our intercessor and our redeemer;
No priest, no evil one can keep us from feeling like Hitler's children.
Not Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel.
Away with incense and holy water pots. ...
I am no Christian and no Catholic.
I go with the SA through thick and thin.... Hitler Youth Camp Song, Helmreich, p. 267.
Village atheists who insist on tying Nazism to Christianity display an ignorance of history that rivals their ignorance of Christian theology.
Politicians throughout history have subverted, politicized and secularized Christian churches. The results have not reflected biblical Christianity.
What's being clarified for me today and yesterday is how incredibly oversensitive you guys are. To take these speculative interpretations and intended-to-be-humorous comments and twist them into an occasion to probe the right's fascism and racism is just way over the top.
Unfortunately for you, this photo will wind up on one or more of the late-night comedy shows this week, probably tonight. It fits right into the comedy writers' already well-worked meme of Obama being embarrassed by Biden. If the joke is funny enough it might go "viral."
When this happens, will you be able to handle it?
The point isn't what's humorous and what's not. If more conservatives had a better sense of humor more of them would excel as comedians. But they don't.
The point is that this, like so many other ridiculous things here, is actually intended to influence political attitudes and a political discussion. Are you that naive? Althouse has this coy way of saying she's not being serious, but... oh wait! I actually meant that. Just because she blurs the lines between fantasy and reality doesn't mean that we don't take her obviously political efforts at face value.
This, of course, she is perfectly within her rights to do. What offends me is that this is all that the right has to go on! I find it offensive to the idea of political discourse in this country. It got under your skin the way crazy, committed left-wing loonies went off in 2003, 2004, 2005... and I get that. I take no offense at how peeved you got at the ridiculousness of the tenor, the tone, the lack of sane political arguments. That's fine. Likewise, I'd appreciate it if you'd accept just how pathetic I find these attempts to impact the political discourse. They are beneath sane consideration and are only considered humorous by people who have had their panties too tied up in a bunch to find anything to laugh about for the last two years.
That's about it from me on that, but thanks for the opportunity to provide clarification. I appreciate it and hope you get why I consider this not only annoying but so self-defeating from your side that I am offended and embarrassed for y'all's sake.
They are beneath sane consideration and are only considered humorous by people who have had their panties too tied up in a bunch to find anything to laugh about for the last two years
We are laughing at you and at Obama. And especially at Michelle Obama's clothing choices. Those are really funny. Especially the wrestling belts.
See.....recovery. Isn't it great.
I'm finding more and more things to laugh about daily. Thank you Ritmo/MUL et al.
Politicians throughout history have subverted, politicized and secularized Christian churches. The results have not reflected biblical Christianity.
Yeah, just like the USSR didn't reflect true communism. The proof is in the pudding.
See.....recovery. Isn't it great.
I hope one day you become healthy enough and achieve a good enough recovery to become a little more selective in your humor and not delude yourself into thinking that every single one of twenty shots of Michelle Obama in the span of less than two years already are really all that incredibly funny.
There is a difference between laughing and snickering. When you are healthy enough you will understand.
But I'm glad you've found a way to make yourself feel even a little bit better. The Obamas, I'm sure, are big enough to take it and obviously you are in greater need of a reason to feel good than they are.
"The Dow plummeted in October, 2008, but the tea party movement didn't start till after Obama was inaugurated. Was the mid-March dip the only crash worth noticing?"
And in November there was a major election. The Bush administration did some things that people thought weren't all that smart, but he was on the way out. An absolute lame duck. What Bush did at that point was all presented as a stop-gap in any case, while the Obama administration was portrayed as ramping up to speed faster than any previous administration had done in response to that crisis.
For those complaining, long term, about the big-government spending of Bush and the Congress during his administration (and a whole lot of people did, the "pork busters" blog efforts are one example, and I know that I expressed the belief that Bush didn't feel he could press economic conservatism (assuming he even wanted to) while trying to get cooperation for the effort in Iraq) were complaining long term, the fact is that others did not "wake up" until the mortgage crisis and did not become active until they realized that, as much as it sucked for the people having problems, that they were going to be punished in proportion to how fiscally careful they had been and for however much they'd scraped and skimped to keep themselves solvent. The government was talking about bailing out those who'd lived beyond their means while those who hadn't, who were hurting just as much due to the economic crash and struggling to make payments on houses way beyond their new market value, were going to pay for it.
And it went on from there.
Suddenly TRILLIONS of dollars were demanded to throw money at a problem to make it go away, as if that ever works, and it didn't seem that there was any thought behind the spending to direct those funds in ways that would stimulate the economy. (Let's fund every pet project any one has and let's not send too much money to industries that employ mostly men, that would be sexist!, because female social workers build important bridges too.) One thing after another. One humongous unread spending bill after another. Constant crisis and constant demand to accept the situation.
And the best the opposition can come up with to this situation is "Oh, they're just a bunch of racist white folks who hate Obama."
Obviously.
The point isn't what's humorous and what's not. If more conservatives had a better sense of humor more of them would excel as comedians. But they don't.
"You liberals can have a salad!" - Rush Limbaugh for Hooters
Obviously.
Indeed.
"Unlike you, I'm not an Internet mind-reader."
No, you just KNOW that people are racist. You don't have to read their minds or anything.
"You liberals can have a salad!" - Rush Limbaugh for Hooters
Did they?
"They certainly were instrumental in shifting racist support from the Democratic party to the Republicans. Well done!"
Please stop telling lies.
I think I had a hamburger the one time I went to Hooters along with some chicken wings. That Rush, what a cut-up!
Please stop telling lies.
Read a history book. While not every racist in the South switched parties, most of them did eventually.
I think I had a hamburger the one time I went to Hooters along with some chicken wings. That Rush, what a cut-up!
Just think.
You could have had a salad and saved all that C02 pollution caused by those nasty farting cows. Of course, much of the salad was probably transported from other parts of the world so it was probably a carbon offset wash.
So I suppose you should just drink the beer.
It's not just racists who hate Obama. Isn't that obvious enough already? Just like it wasn't only racists who voted for Nixon, and everyone else that Lee Atwater sympathized with or worked for.
There are people who have been actively harboring a reason to hate Obama for some time. For the economically ignorant and those with extremely short memories, shorter attention spans, and still shorter understanding of patience, the recession provides a good reason. Some people are really pissed about lacking a job. However, I doubt any of you Gordon Gecko acolytes are in that category.
There is room for legitimate debate on whether the government can and should do something to make the recovery proceed faster (Another housing bubble, perhaps?). But I highly doubt that Synova and at least a few others want to have that conversation. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the prospect that there are some cons here who would, but for the most part they just want to make political hay out of it. They want a reason to win seats in the fall and are hoping this provides it to them. Hence, the snickering and hatred and unwillingness to accept that Bush presided over the bubble and didn't take it any more seriously than the pundits did. Their credibility about seriously addressing where we go from here is just not there.
No, you just KNOW that people are racist. You don't have to read their minds or anything.
When I've spoken to people in person and they've said things like "[t]he Democratic party is the party of the n*ggers," I can draw my own conclusions.
We had a black mayor here in Chicago who would only get like 25% of the white vote in general elections. After he died in office, the current mayor would routinely receive 99% or so of the white vote. Think that there might be any racial connection there? I'll save you the effort of claiming that black voters are racist for tending to support black candidates by tendering the examples of Michael Steele and Alan Keyes who both failed to get any significant black support when they ran against white candidates.
Phosphorious sputtered:
"BTW. . . it's over three hundred comments between this post and the other.
"Are no conservatives embarrassed that they find this photograph so significant?"
I don't know about the other thread, but I'm looking at this stretch of this thread and you are, by far, the most prolific commenter in this one. By a huge margin, actually.
There is room for legitimate debate on whether the government can and should do something to make the recovery proceed faster (Another housing bubble, perhaps?).
Yes, that is debatable. You think that artifically inflating (yet again) the market value of houses beyond reality will actually create a sustainable recovery? Really?
The Fed is getting ready to purchase Treasuries. How do you think this is going to affect a 'recovery'.
Hint: get ready for higher long term interest rates, a much slower housing market and a general extention of the current economic dip. On the bright side: China might be enticed to purchase our debt with the upcoming higher interest rates. Or maybe not. Our credit quality as a country is tanking. Hope you don't own any Treasuries.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the housing bubble didn't burst the way that it should have to allow a real recovery. The Government has stepped in and is making things worse by now giving Freddie and Fannie unlimited checkbooks.
You could have had a salad and saved all that C02 pollution caused by those nasty farting cows. Of course, much of the salad was probably transported from other parts of the world so it was probably a carbon offset wash.
Another fine example of conservative "humor."
I don't know about the other thread, but I'm looking at this stretch of this thread and you are, by far, the most prolific commenter in this one. By a huge margin, actually.
Ann just created a third thread, so it's obviously not very important.
...hope you get why I consider this not only annoying but so self-defeating from your side that I am offended and embarrassed for y'all's sake.
Sides? What are we playing? Dodgeball?
I'm not on a side. I just think it's a bizarre picture. If merely saying that somehow managed to damage the conservative cause, I would find a way to live with it.
Underneath it all, Ritmo, is we're still in the "getting to know you" phase with Obama. Not conservatives, Americans generally. Obama was not that well-known before the election, and now he's on display every day. The picture is an interesting clue, or maybe it isn't a clue at all, but it's funny.
It sounds almost like you think there's some boiler-room of Obama opponents who decide what bloggers are going to talk about each day to damage the president. "Aaah, I see there's a new photo. Tell me Smithers, what does it look like 'Barry' is saying? Mwa ha ha ha."
No, the picture and commentary went viral because that's what happens on the internet when you have a bizarre picture of the president making a strange face while leaning against a wall, looking at his goofy vice president, and wearing a bow tie.
Were you paying attention, Ritmo?
What part of the "spendulous" do you feel was legitimately aimed at improving the economy in way any more deliberate than "throw money at it, anywhere, something might stick"?
Did you actually not notice the *political* demand not to favor infrastructure or similar building industries because they employ mostly men? Even though those industries were the hardest hit and men suffered more new unemployment?
Who is taking the political route here and not taking the situation seriously? Who isn't willing to talk about what might actually work? Who isn't politically *able* to talk about what might actually work because ideology gets in the way?
And then we get "broken window" economic boosts from destroying perfectly functional automobiles, and we call it a win. Because our standards of "win" are just that low.
Wow, lots of trolls here today. I think Queen Mary Jane Milky Loads sent her minions here to distract from his dumbfuckery.
"You could have had a salad and saved all that C02 pollution caused by those nasty farting cows. Of course, much of the salad was probably transported from other parts of the world so it was probably a carbon offset wash."
Another fine example of conservative "humor."
Silly child. That was sarcasm.
"When I've spoken to people in person and they've said things like "[t]he Democratic party is the party of the n*ggers," I can draw my own conclusions."
Where do you actually meet people who actually, really, in front of you, use that term?
No one I know or associate with would do that. For one thing, because they'd expect to get a beat-down, one way or another, for doing so.
The only real people I've ever heard use it are Chris Rock or other black entertainers.
Silly child. That was sarcasm.
Indeed. And it still wasn't funny.
I was being facetious with the parentheses, DBQ.
No, John. I don't think there is a room full of plotters. (Except, perhaps, at NRO. Kidding. Well sort of). Some people who don't just pick reasons out of a hat to hate Obama will find the photo (or any photo) funny. I'm not debating that. I'm addressing what to make of it when posted on a web site owned by someone who votes for someone based on his intelligence, and basks in the glory of an aggressively right-wing audience and likes to blur the line between humor, seriousness, reality and fantasy. It was fun? Ok. It was fun. But if there's a political element to the response, yes, I take that seriously. Althouse might vote for someone based on their intelligence and then win back the affections and respect of those who don't with ridiculous visual hyperbole and innuendo. But I think that's disingenuous and don't have a problem saying so.
And Synova... tsk, tsk, tsk. Sigh. Oh boy... Where to begin? You really disappoint me.
Read Keynes and pretend that you gave a fig about Bush's ridiculous series of never-ending spendulouses and then you'll have reason both to be taken seriously and treated as someone who thinks fairly enough to understand that the economy doesn't respond differently to an expenditure depending on whether a Republican or a Democrat enacted it.
Thanks.
Oh, and let us not forget the *political* demands to stop any development of domestic sources of oil or gas, which would provide jobs that would pay for themselves without government redistribution of other people's money.
It would be near effortless for Congress to allow additional drilling. Private funds would go toward development, not government, and more people and businesses would have income to pay taxes on.
But the economy just isn't important enough to do that. It's like suggesting that we expose grandma for internet porn. Selling our souls.
Who isn't willing to have a serious conversation about what would actually stimulate the economy?
Where do you actually meet people who actually, really, in front of you, use that term?
In Chicago, although people tend not to be as straightforward nowadays as they were in the past. That darn political correctness!
No one I know or associate with would do that. For one thing, because they'd expect to get a beat-down, one way or another, for doing so.
Funny, I saw a Chicago cop raise his baton and address a black man with the phrase for daring to make a passing wisecrack. The officer didn't seem particularly concerned about the consequences of using the term.
The only real people I've ever heard use it are Chris Rock or other black entertainers.
Of course, we all know that blacks are the real racists. Although Michael Richards is looking a bit pale!
Silly child. That was sarcasm.
Indeed. And it still wasn't funny.
True. Sarcasm isn't always, by definition, funny. Sometimes it can be sadly true
"Read Keynes and pretend that you gave a fig about Bush's ridiculous series of never-ending spendulouses and then you'll have reason both to be taken seriously and treated as someone who thinks fairly enough to understand that the economy doesn't respond differently to an expenditure depending on whether a Republican or a Democrat enacted it."
So... can I assume that you felt Bush's spending was fabulous?
Or are you accusing me of what you're doing yourself? Is your opinion different if it was Bush or Obama? Mine is NOT. You pretend it is, but it is not. I disapproved of big government spending under Bush. I disapprove under Obama. *I* am consistent.
Are you?
Or are you more interested in what I think, or my supposed inconsistencies, than about what would really help our economy recover? Do you have any opinions that are not based on your supposed understanding of my opinions?
As occasionally has been known to happen, I don't even understand what you're trying to convince me of anymore, Synova.
I'm sure Bunny's got some interesting points to make about a recovery, and I'll leave them to her to make them. As I said, I don't discount any analysis by an economist not affiliated with or in agreement with the White House on this. But I'd like to think I understand energy a little bit better. The administration is banking on the prospect of greater growth being in non-fossil fuels and conservation than fossil fuels. If you want to debate that, fine. But I think you're just shifting the argument around. Either way, there's contribution to growth... the question is: how much? I happen to think there's much more momentum we can gain with non-fossil fuels (except, perhaps, for gas) and conservation, but that's just me. Plus, whether you like it or not, there's a question of cleanliness, renewability environmental responsibility and natural capital. The administration is sympathetic to those things. Maybe you're not. But there's a Nobel Prize winner in charge of energy and if you don't like the direction, I'd suggest you brush up on the topics I'm informing you about here.
The fact is that there is more R & D potential in the approach favored by the administration. You don't like that? You discount that? People who value innovation, technology and the much greater role in plays and has always played in economic growth beg to differ. I'd say they're right to assume more growth out of figuring out how to get more power out of the sun's rays than in putting up a fucking oil derrick and putting tourists and the coasts they're attracted to at risk. But I guess you're going to have to understand why that value judgment is taken as more supportable, rational and defensible than the alternative - at least when they're presented (politically) as either/or choices.
Thanks.
"What part of the "spendulous" do you feel was legitimately aimed at improving the economy in way any more deliberate than "throw money at it, anywhere, something might stick"?"
Instead of tisking me and telling me to read something, Ritmo, how about you answer this question?
Or can't you?
Because I sure didn't notice anything but "throw money at it and see if anything sticks" in the stimulous bill. If it was there and no one pointed it out, it might be reassuring to mention it now.
Oh... and... 300!
Make that 301 - no, 302!
304!
"The administration is banking on the prospect of greater growth being in non-fossil fuels and conservation than fossil fuels. If you want to debate that, fine."
That's the political spin, but it has a problem.
Why not both?
If green-energy has greater growth, great. But why not both?
"Why not" is ideology, it's choosing to suffer for your faith.
And I'm not surprised I confuse you because half the time you seem to be addressing some fantasy Synova who doesn't exist.
It would be near effortless for Congress to allow additional drilling. Private funds would go toward development, not government, and more people and businesses would have income to pay taxes on.
A couple of problems. Currently some 3/4 of federal lands leased for oil and gas production are not being drilled. So there has to be "use it or lose it" provisions.
But the bigger problem is supply vs. demand. The point at which additional US supplies would have made a dent in our consumption was twenty years ago. We would really have to conserve for our supplies to be a significant part of our consumption again. We might as well drink other countries' milkshakes for now, and save our own supply for when oil is $500 a barrel.
The problem with doing both is that utilities tend to become economies of scale, natural monopolies that define our infrastructure and promote themselves. If you want to put up a derrick, fine. The problem is that oil runs out in a few hundred years tops, coal not much longer, and the things that monopolists can't bar your access to, such as the sun, the wind and the waves, do not. We get a few billion on those. So if you want to advocate that we use this opportunity massively upgrade our energy grids by linking them to and integrating them with more temporary things rather than more permanent things, you are making a shortsighted argument.
Sometimes it can be sadly true
I'm glad to see that you were concerned about the cows and the salad and all that given that you weren't trying to be funny.
Yeah, just like the USSR didn't reflect true communism. The proof is in the pudding.(6:03)
Did I say something to provoke a defense of your beloved commies, nrn/ritmo/montanus?
Who even knows what you're talking about, El Homie? Why are you bringing me up? Is your retirement home's nurse late with the Viagra, or something? Did she put you in isolation for acting out? Shuffleboard deck is undergoing renovation? What, exactly?
Althouse is a propagandist of Goebbels' caliber.
Montana Urban Legend, do you really believe that? Is that your honest assessment based on measured analysis? Is it a true reflection of your conclusions?
She's definitely not as successful as Goebbels. At least, not yet, apparently. Just as willing and capable of blending a fact or two with extraordinarily well crafted imagination and story-telling.
Sometimes it can be sadly true
I'm glad to see that you were concerned about the cows and the salad and all that given that you weren't trying to be funny.
Sadly, you also miss the intention of sarcasm.
How did a comment thread about Obama's double-O-zero tuxedo morph into yet another Ritzy Brassiere masturbatory screed about how he thinks that solar panels and windmills are so awesome that we should all pay for them?
Hey Ritzy -- why don't you take some of your own money and invest it in your own windfarm, and reap all that free energy? Why should I even need to subsidize this, with all those terrawatts just floating around out there for the taking?
Why don't you take your own money, and buy land, and put solar panels on it, without government subsidy, and feed that energy back into the grid and make more money, and buy more land and solar panels, until you own all the energy production in this country?
Well, it's certainly got the usual liberals stirred up into a frenzy. Special credit to nrn312 for his valiant attempt to reach 50 fucking posts out of 300. Man, don't you guys have anything better to do?
The photo analysis was just a little piece of mild entertainment poking fun an Obama's image, and the kneejerk frenzy from the three prolific liberal posters here is astounding for something of such little consequence.
Again with the fucking 'it's racism' bullshit over this? Don't you guys ever get tired of being so fucking tedious?
It happened because Synova was interested in having a realistic conversation about energy policy and the monopolies that are affected by it. But then, she probably takes her own thoughts more seriously than a guy with an avatar of a half-naked sadomasochist from GWAR wrapped in leather holsters and a loincloth.
Sounds like you have a serious issue with people being able to access energy on their own and sell it for a savings or profit. I guess I should feel bad for you. But on some level, I get the impression that you don't mind coming across this indefatigably stupid.
Good that you're only shaken -- if that -- but not stirred. We like our bloggers neat.
Why does everybody call him Andrew and everybody else is is called by surname? Is he your little brother? Your roommate? Is he in your club?
Who even knows what you're talking about, El Homie? Why are you bringing me up? (7:24)
As the foremost Althouse sock puppet, Ritzy, et al., you naturally come to mind when a new, yammering, serial posting, left-wing whackjob shows up.
Your senility betrays you, dipshit. Sock puppet, as your friend Blake and the others informed you, relates to intentional deception. My change of name was announced publicly on my blog, here. It was mentioned on Althouse. So, no deception. If you deceive yourself in light of publicly available facts, then you have only yourself to blame. That, and perhaps your geriatrician for not upping the Aricept dose.
So, get back to your assigned unit in the nursing home, and make sure you're in bed before lights out. And take your meds. The nurses will take even less kindly to your usual ornery grabiness if you're looking like this. And your kids (should you have any, which I doubt - at least none that would care about you) might be less likely to stave off any imminent fulfillment of the terms of your will should you fail to knock off the bullshit, pops.
Go to bed, old man. And don't forget to soak your dentures. Soon you'll be fast asleep and dreaming that it's still the roaring twenties.
He really is one ornery stupid old prick, ain't he?
BTW, Gawker's now pwning you guys.
You've made yourselves into tabloid fodder!
Hahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahaha.
Oh wait. It's probably what you wanted and a sign of importance in your minds. Nevermind. Hope you're proud!
Hahahah, Ritmo thinks we read his blog. Priceless.
And Ritmo thinks that Gawker post 'pwns' Althouse. But funnily enough, many of the commenters there are interpreting it similarly to Ann... 46% think Obama looks sleepy. Oh no, pwned!
To normal people, it's a fun photo to do a little blogpost riff on how Obama looks tired and sick of Biden's shit. It's funny how wild that drives the hardcore Obots - even a little riff on an inconsequetial photo drives them fucking crazy and has them screaming racism.
BTW, Gawker's now pwning you guys.
Eh. It falls well short of pwning. At best, maybe a rpntal application. The post treats Sullivan's claim that Glenn Reynolds' interest in the photo is because Reynolds is a racist who doesn't like Obama to look uppity as if that was, duh, sooo obvious.
I read it and found myself wondering if Sullivan was owed a favor by some Gawkerite. I'm sure most of the site's readers' reaction to this convoluted post was, "Who are these people he's writing about? Are they on a show or something?"
I think that people who believe that making information publicly available is a way of being deceptive are idiots, "MC". Rather like you.
Who knows what Gawker's readership thinks. They probably wouldn't have bothered. Regardless, it's a New York type of gossipy site and now two heretofore little-known (outside their clique), conservatively sympathetic bloggers are being made to look foolish to a much more trend-setting blogging community (should they care to look into it).
The issue is that the dynamics become convoluted. But that's precisely the point. What, in God's name, is Glenn Reynold's point? Why does he post the other comment? The kid's dad gets it, gets angry or whatever it was?
The fact of the matter is that whatever innuendo Reynolds is spewing with that comment seems much more explicable and less speculative than the obfuscatory innuendo Althouse was spewing about Obama. Perhaps he didn't mean to imply something as offensive as a photo of Obama shining Sarah Palin's shoes. But in that case he's a racially insensitive/oblivious idiot.
And it still leaves unanswered the great question? What the hell did he mean to imply? People who feel strongly about it think the dad's reaction implies racism. But Glenn doesn't even feel strongly enough about it to post any interpretation other than a cryptic, Hmmmmm..... Gee......
Brave way to make your fucking point, Glenn Reynolds. You master of cryptic innuendo and inability to make a point. Go ahead. Tell us what you really think.
Thought so.
I mean, some people who post things are actually able to tell us the significance of what they posted. But NOT the Great Glenn Reynolds. He's just too sophisticated for that. He posts the reaction that will imply racism to a lot of people, steps back and gives the impression that he didn't have any point to make with it. I get the fact that he doesn't feel strongly about it. But what the fuck is so damn "interesting" to him, then? Surely he had a point to make in posting it, even if he can't bring himself to verbalize what it is.
So just go ahead and fan the flames of those who think they know better. It doesn't make your side look very good. If you want to inflame passions you look down upon without even being able to explain why, you only look like an obscure controversy-seeking nobody. Which I guess is appropriate for someone with as little to say as Reynolds. In any event, I'll let the website speak for himself. Reynolds looks freakier and creepier than he knows. He's a weirdo!!!
The good thing is that finally the bullshit body language "analysis" is being killed a merciless death. That's a good thing, especially given how bizarre Glenn Reynolds just naturally looks without even trying.
And oh yeah, attempt to make a substantive criticism of Obama, while you're at it. If you can. Or just "be intrigued" by irate reactions to Obama committing the horrifying sin of standing next to Joe Biden.
Whatever.
Ritmo Sock Puppet wrote: Your senility betrays you, dipshit. Sock puppet, as your friend Blake and the others informed you, relates to intentional deception. My change of name was announced publicly on my blog.... It was mentioned on Althouse.(9:49)
What a crock, Ritzy/Samba/Montanus/nrn, or whoever you are tonight. I've got a blog too. Have you read it? And the mention on Alhouse was somebody else calling you on your shit.
"Sock puppet" is broad enough to include your nonsense. Nobody here reads your blog and the only reason to have changed your handle was to deceive. You would have succeeded but for your recognizable manner of a yammering, serial posting, left-wing whackjob (as I mentioned earlier).
Go to bed, old man. And don't forget to soak your dentures.
So what's with this nonsense, little fella? Is it that lefty students like yourself think only old people should be allowed to retire? Well, take heart. I'm guessing it will be true of you, but it wasn't of me.
BTW, I see from your second paragraph that your intelligibility hasn't improved. Are you toking between posts with the other kids in the dorm?
He posts the reaction that will imply racism to a lot of people, steps back and gives the impression that he didn't have any point to make with it.
How? Glenn Reynolds has never once given me any reason to think he's got a racist bone in his body.
Doesn't mean he's right all the time. He was clearly wrong to dismiss so airily complaints about the shoe-shine picture. But that's a trait of non-racists. They don't see race in everything.
Nobody here reads your blog and the only reason to have changed your handle was to deceive.
Not true, Old Senile Sir. This is the dumbest crock of shit that anyone could come up with. NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU. I liked the name better and couldn't give a rat's ass what you think about it. I told Trooper. I announced it in the most public way that it could be announced - ON MY OWN FUCKING BLOG. Blake, I didn't tell - he doesn't know me well enough. But he understands that it's not deception to a pseudonymous nobody like you, for me to publicly post what I did. AND HE TOLD YOU THAT! How fucking self-centered are you? I don't care about you, and if you don't want to take what what I say at face value then don't fucking ask me any questions direct questions. It suits your own cowardly sort of projection, I suppose.
I mean, what the fuck am I supposed to do? Send you a fucking letter in the mail?!?!?! Send me your fucking address at the nursing home/retirement community you live at in Texas, then. Anything else I do that you want me to inform you of, while we're at it? Should I sign a waiver if I read a book without your approval? What if I change my address? You want advance notice of that too? Wouldn't want to deceive, you understand. I mean, you must be the dumbest piece of shit posting on the internets!!!!!!!
Fucking go to bed already. You are becoming stupider not only by the day, but by the hour. The more sleep you get the less trouble you will give the home-care aids. They already have enough to put up with given all your drooling and incontinence.
Nope. You said last time that you were intentionally deceived and that's the definition that mattered to you. No one else agreed. I'd link to THAT thread, but you will deny the significance of that just like you would deny the sky is blue. NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU. But this is like trying to teach a mummy how to text message. Completely lost cause.
So shut the fuck up. Either send me your home address or I'll claim that you are intentionally trying to deceive me as to your identity, too. Oh, but "nonsense" makes one a sock puppet. Lack of intelligibililty... TO A SENILE FUCK FROM THE WRONG CENTURY!!!
Take your medicine, gramps. We take you in for a CT scan tomorrow.
I've got a blog too. Have you read it?
I would read the link to a post in it where you explained anything you'd modified about yourself as evidence that you are not deceiving someone. BUT WHAT DOES IT MATTER? I never made an accusation that stupid in the first place. You did. And then you denied evidence that you were wrong. And still do. Because you're stupid (and probably senile).
You probably wrote this to ask whether or not I thought you were important. Oh, ok. Here's the answer: YOU'RE NOT!!!
And you're also really, really dumb. Too dumb for anyone to believe it's possible. Or paranoid. Anything I'll post to you will be under a single identity. This one. Now fuck off.
Regardless of the name the Blogger ID is always the same. Think of it as DNA - something that you might have been alive to hear about as the discovery of its structure was made over fifty years ago. But I digress. You have beclowned yourself beyond all recognition already and you find that cute.
I guess everyone needs something to be recognized for. Do you need attention that badly?
Ritmo and FLS... I wasn't arguing that drilling for oil or gas in US territories solves all of our energy problems, only that it is one thing (among any number of things) that would employ people and push economic recovery without government redistribution, if that was actually the priority of those in government. It may be a small thing, or it may be a larger thing, but small or large it's an action that the government could take if it wanted to, to create jobs, that doesn't *cost* anything to taxpayers.
The question of energy policy overall is a different matter. Certainly we ought to and ought to have been for some time now, putting money into nuclear power in a big way. But we aren't doing that *either*. Did any of our huge stimulous bill go to nuclear power or any other known technology that can sustain baseline power loads?
We should do the things now that we can do now. None of it, not drilling, not even nuclear power, excludes other development. Nothing about this is either/or. We don't have to research solar and wind power OR build nuclear plants today. We don't have to stop looking at bio-fuels (not green, btw, because it's still carbon burning and spewing) if we give permission for development of domestic gas and oil sources or if we do like Palin did an enforce "use it or lose it" on companies sitting on domestic oil leases.
Also, no one thing, no "green" energy, no nuclear power, no solar or wind or bio, no drilling, no methane recovery from cow manure, no "clean" coal... none of those is going to give us energy independence so *rejecting* any of it because it isn't good enough, won't provide a magic pill, is pushing back any possible solution. Nothing is developed because nothing gives instant and total gratification.
There are principles that apply over time and when we can't look ahead but demand either a full solution or no solution today, we're foolish.
Even otherwise smart people make this sort of mistake. It's like my grandfather who wouldn't plant trees because trees take too long to grow. He and his brother and nephew started a steam tractor show some 56 or more years ago. Build buildings, build a pavilion, build huge sheds for all the tractors, build showers and permanent rest rooms, but no one planted a tree until after grandpa died because he couldn't see the point of bothering when you couldn't get any shade right *now*.
Sometimes smart people are stupid.
Sorry, John. Surely it would be more interesting to continue a conversation with you on Reynolds, or anything else, for that matter. But I've got to contend with a senile fool and rumor-mongerer who claims that because he wasn't personally notified of something (and how this would be done is anyone's guess, he never gave me his address or phone number), he was intentionally deceived.
He doesn't seem to understand that the Blogger profiles actually link to personal blogs.
But you see, I care about the retarded. So I have to passionately remonstrate with this decerebrate. It's a pain, but he can't live without the attention, you see. He's retired. And lonely.
As much Viagra as he takes, the only play he can get is from the nurse when she changes his diaper. And she'd teach him to text message but his grasp on technology limits him to the Etch-a-Sketch. So he's feeling very hurt and neglected. It's very hard on his ego.
So what's with this nonsense, little fella? Is it that lefty students like yourself think only old people should be allowed to retire? Well, take heart. I'm guessing it will be true of you, but it wasn't of me.
As much money as anyone in my family ever made, they'd have never completely retired - especially not early in life as you imply. It "wasn't" true of you? This implies that your retirement happened in the past, perhaps sufficiently long ago for you to be old by now. Regardless, the point is that you clearly need something to do, and not working or doing anything useful has wasted your brain. And if your dementia is of an early-onset variety - as I suspect, then I am happy to hear that you were able to retire when you got the chance. After all, a Texas lawyer is able to fall asleep during a trial and not get disbarred or sued for it, so whatever handicap you have must have been very severe.
You need to find something to keep you active, because you are clearly wasting your brain away and evidence shows that not being generative will only exacerbate your sad condition.
Oh, Ritmo, you really are making yourself look dense. You can't understand that post, are you serious?
It's a fun and interesting photo, and it's entertaining to see people interpret it because its ambiguity says things about what people think of Obama/Biden. In one way, it looks amusingly like Obama reacting to Biden saying something buffoonish. That's probably what Reynolds saw, because that's more evident in the closeup he showed.
In another way, Obama looks cool and James Bondish, and that's what supporters see. And in another way Obama looks tired. It's interesting that Althouse, an Obama voter who has been disappointed in how he's been performing sees him as being tired. Another narrative is that Obama has surrounded himself with incompetent people, and some people see the photo as evidence that the Whitehouse people running the Flickr feed are incompetent.
And finally people who really don't like Obama tend to rant about how arrogant and elitist he is (surely you've noticed this); one reader emailed in and implied his dad's reactions would be along those lines. Reynolds quoted it and wrote "It’s interesting to read the comments, where what people see is very different depending on who’s posting." because it was an example of a person reacting differently to it.
That's all it is; an interesting photo that's fun to analyze because it provokes an interesting range of reactions.
Blogger Synova said...
Ah, Ritmo, you're just mad you missed ALL the fun.
You could have been calling people racist for two whole days already, or explained how illusions of equality are actually proof of inferiority complexes.
1/4/10 5:20 PM
What do you think MultiLevelMarketing312 has been up to?
TW: ginedoms. Whatta buncha ginedoms.
Oops, guess I dallied. New TW: fundela. See what you can do with that one.
He doesn't seem to understand that the Blogger profiles actually link to personal blogs.
Is there some reason to check the profiles of lefty trolls?
It "wasn't" true of you? This implies that your retirement happened in the past, perhaps sufficiently long ago for you to be old by now.
Perhaps, but that is not sufficiently clear to warrant your assumptions, which, in addition to your posts in general, reflect your inability to distinguish opinion from fact. In the same vein, I am not, and never have been, a Texas lawyer.
Regardless, the point is that you clearly need something to do, and not working or doing anything useful has wasted your brain.
There is some irony to this observation from someone whose time spent posting here exceeds mine by roughly ten to one and whose posts consist largely of gratuitous insults and redundant, unresponsive nonsense.
I do try to take time away from my busy schedule to keep you occupied with your silly, vitriolic attacks on me so the grownups here can exchange ideas.
Call it troll baiting, Ritmo Easy Meat. ROTFL
Is there some reason to check the profiles of lefty trolls?
If you make an accusation of someone, you must provide the basis for it. Calling someone a name doesn't absolve you of responsibility for checking the facts behind your stupid, bullshit accusations. Of course, you knew that already. Or, you would have if you were either not senile or less obsessed with me.
I do try to take time away from my busy schedule to keep you occupied with your silly, vitriolic attacks on me so the grownups here can exchange ideas.
Too bad it doesn't work. And at no time did I ever prevent any "ideas" (or any other cognitive discharge, for that matter) from being exchanged here. I did, I recall, exchange several ideas with Synova, DBQ and John Stodder, among others. And that was just on this thread. And they were just the people of whom, we might assume, you approve.
There is some irony to this observation from someone whose time spent posting here exceeds mine by roughly ten to one and whose posts consist largely of gratuitous insults and redundant, unresponsive nonsense.
I suppose this is an example of your own inability to distinguish opinion from fact.
But what is interesting is the way you lack any explanation for your own inability to provide a single, quality contribution of your own. You clearly lack the ability to come up with an original comment - a lack that is not shared by the commenters to whose defense you rush, commenters who are not offended by a different point of view or a challenge to their own statements.
But this is all beside the point. The point is that you clearly have an inappropriate attraction to me, one that gets in the way of what you would like to describe as a "busy schedule". Of course, like I said, I suspect that's a line of bullshit and that your life really couldn't be less fulfilled. Like every thing you offer, it's likely just a front - a facade, to further the bravado of a dishonest imbecile who can't defend what he says and prefers to let others think for him. And when that fails, he lustily stalks the people who get in the way of his act, in a manner not unlike a perverted serial rapist!
Enjoy your life filled with rolling on the floor laughs. Be sure not to knock over your other "kills". I'm sure they are the closest things you have to actual companions.
New York Times, White House edition, now with a lot more house and added squirrel.
Post a Comment