Page 9 of 17 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
#580325 - 11/25/10 04:41 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: ChrisW]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
"If someone opposes everything you stand for, then isn't it in your interest to to figure out why?"

You mean like terrorists who hate our freedom?

Understanding Glenn Beck.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#580326 - 11/25/10 04:50 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: Peter Urkowitz]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
You don't seem to be disagreeing with Bromwich on Obama's tactics, Peter, just on what they signify. Bromwich participates in a roundtable on the recent elections.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#580331 - 11/26/10 12:58 AM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: madget]
ChrisW Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/00
Posts: 10034
Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
Originally Posted By: madget
In any case, a talk radio parrothead is what you usually sound like.


I wouldn’t know. I don’t listen to talk radio nor do I know anyone who self-identifies as a talk radio listener. Lots of people sound alike, even when they have nothing in common. Similar to the sort of people who use phrases like “talk radio parrothead”. You know radio plays music too, and there’s a whole life outside radio, right? How many hours a day do you have to listen to talk radio in order to maintain your status as expert in the field?

Quote:
Well, for one, because of the context, which you willfully ignored.


That context is entirely directed at people who can be safely relied on to accuse the enemy of parroting talk radio, i.e. you and most of the others I’ve responded to on this thread. You’re ignoring that I have repeatedly addressed the context, no different than Obama saying “the campaign is over, John” in that meeting with Republicans producing evidence of all their health care ideas – including ones linked to on the White House’s website. Just because you say I’m ignoring it does not make it so. You refuse to acknowledge that I am addressing it, but that does not make it so. It only means that you are condemning yourself to frustration, which is not helpful or productive to your beliefs, your country or yourself. Unless you can clap your hands and make it all go away.

Quote:
No successful attacks on America have happened under Obama. A simplistic angle lacking much in the way of context, but you seem to like that kind of thing.


Most people don’t place as much faith as you do in the “hope the terrorist’s bomb fails to explode after he gets on the plane” strategy.

Quote:
Further, Bush himself has praised Obama's foreign policy, particularly in regards to the war.


Yes, President Bush has been extraordinarily classy to his successor. Thank you for noticing.

Quote:
Military spending continues to be tremendously high.


It’s tough to claim you’re reliable on national security if you try to slice it at every opportunity.

Quote:
But I know it's important for you to invent reasons to hate him, even when he does things that the right-wing should theoretically be pleased with.


So how do you explain that the right was quite sympathetic over his difficulties with General McChrystal and quite supported his picking General “Betray-us”? Why is it I keep pointing out that Obama is committing US military forces to multiple Muslim countries that did not attack us on 9/11 and none of his defenders even acknowledge it? Isn’t that, like, what Bush did and it outraged you so?

Quote:
Any cursory examination of government spending since the 80s will dispel that. In fact most of what I've seen strongly suggests that Republicans are far worse spenders than Democrats. I do think the Democrats tend to be disappointing pansies about defending themselves against that line of attack, however. Republicans are much, much better at getting away with spouting pure bullshit than Democrats are.


Don’t tell me you wrote this with a straight face.
_________________________
If This Be... PayPal!!!

"I think ChrisW is the funniest man in entertainment still alive..."
-- the perceptive Tom Spurgeon

Top
#580338 - 11/26/10 10:52 AM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: Charles Reece]
ChrisW Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/00
Posts: 10034
Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
"If someone opposes everything you stand for, then isn't it in your interest to to figure out why?"

You mean like terrorists who hate our freedom?

Understanding Glenn Beck.


Exactly. By the time he's describing Beck's "professorial" appearance, it looks like this could take a minor re-write to be about Barack Obama. All it needs is are quotes from Harry Reid that Beck doesn't speak with a Negro accent unless he wants to and Bill Clinton saying that a few years back, Beck would have been getting them coffee. Other than that, you got the vacuous power-luster who will say anything to his large crowds of people looking for a Jew to lead them. And you've got statements that are no more exceptional than "fire has never melted steel" or 9/11 truthers and anti-Bush sentiment in general for the last 10 years. Has Beck ever stated that his defeat of Hillary Clinton signifies the moment where “the oceans began to rise and the planet began to heal”? The left didn’t have a problem with that, so it’s obviously not ridiculous rhetoric designed to attain power in itself that offends them.

I quit reading by the end of the first page, because I realize I didn’t know any more about Glen Beck than I did before you posted this link and I wasn’t likely to find out. It’s a tract to the already-converted.
Paragraph 1: “Canny way to introduce a kinder, gentler Beck”
Paragraph 2: “potted lectures on religion, American history and economics”
Paragraph 2: “Huffington Post-style website” You mean that place with articles’n’stuff ranging from the interesting/ informative to ridiculous extremism of the kind you’re already painting Glenn Beck with in these first two paragraphs?

Paragraph 2: “He did not rant, he did not rave.” Did he do a song and dance routine like Mick Jagger does? Because I’ve heard Rolling Stones songs and seen the Rolling Stones in front of a large group of people. I don’t know anything about Glenn Beck and am relying on the unknown writer of this internet article to give me a fair and balanced report.

Paragraph 3: What is the point of the Father Coughlin reference? What is it with leftists and their obsession with radio? It plays music too! Don’t leftists drive cars with cd players at all? I’m pretty sure all cars come with them by now. Satellite radio, tvs in your cars… Frankly if you’re this obsessed about people on AM radio, it says a lot more about you than anybody else. Some people like rap, or peanut butter on pizza, for goodness sake.

Trotskyists often give historical shout-outs like this to distinguish themselves from Stalinists, who obviously seek to mention Trotsky as little as possible and wipe their words and actions from the historical record. Is there anything to distinguish Coughlin from other international socialists who lost their power struggles and get smeared as right-wing by the winners ever after? No. What’s with the shout-out in this article which is supposedly an informative look at Glenn Beck?

Paragraph 4: “This is Alexander Saitchik’s conclusion, in his sharp and informative smackdown, Common Nonsense and Dana Milbanks in his rambling, impressionistic…”

Come on, Charles, I’m playing fair. I followed the link thinking gamely ‘maybe there is actual information on Glenn Beck here’. I haven’t brought up that you posted on this thread without addressing any of the questions I raise.

Originally Posted By: ChrisW
And why does this mean giving Obama a pass for spending more than every President before him combined? Why does this mean giving Obama a pass for escalating the war when you marched in the streets against his predecessor? If passing legislation is this difficult with a large majority of both houses in Congress and the White House, then why are other people the extreme ones for disagreeing with any part of any law you support? These are very obvious questions that anyone who has no idea who this Glen Beck person is can think of and ask. Or Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, or the "evil rich" that never include any rich people voting Democrat or whoever. These are obvious questions that can be asked by people who take the idea of national security seriously, and it's not being brainwashed by Fox News to ask them.


Come on, Charles. If you’re this constitutionally-incapable of answering or even addressing any one of those questions, you can’t be relied on when times get bad. Because they are bad now. War time, remember?

Like an “uncool parent”, you loudly point the way to something that screams “I don’t want you to like this person!!!” Then you hand out a leaflet directing us to see that person and then seem mystified when people who don’t care one way or the other aren’t horrified by Beck. To this day, I’ve watched more episodes of Rush Limbaugh’s tv show from the early 90’s than I’ve heard his radio show, which is to say, almost never. But the free advertizing people who hate Rush have given him all these years makes him a legitimate option. Uhhhh, thanks, I guess. I’m happy with classic rock and a cd player when I drive. But at least I can tolerate people who choose other things, and am fine with permitting a capitalist enterprise that sustains them, me, you and everybody else in the country. I guess that’s more than you and everybody else invoking “shut up Glenn Beck Sarah Palin talk radio” can conceive of.

“In Beck’s budding political theology…” “Abandoning the grab-it-all gospel preached by the Republican Party since the Reagan years…” “… which he recounts in hair-raising language on his daily show…” Yes Charles, all your fetishes are duly included. No wonder you introduced this article into this thread about Molly Norris and the war in general. Because after a couple of weeks of internet chit-chat, she’s still living undercover and Iran’s ally North Korea has just shelled South Korea, our ally.

Anybody wants to keep defending “isolated extremist”, go for it. Here’s an example:

Originally Posted By: bright young kid on page 2 of a Stan Lee comic encountering the weird cranky genius which will lead to an origin and career as your favorite superhero
“Maybe he was putting out disinformation. You know, because the terrorists working with Abdulmutallab don’t know if they’re the only operators in the region, and using the phrase ‘individual extremist’ makes it look to them like the government has caught somebody else instead. If the bomb had actually exploded like it was intended to do, thanks be to God that it didn’t, then Christmas Day 2009 would have been a victory for the terrorists, and it would have compromised our agents at home and abroad for Obama to signal how much we knew and when. That’s why he included “isolated extremist” in his statement.


Because I’m willing to keep going if you want. It’s amusing to see such automatic unquestioned uniformity. No one shrugs and says “well maybe ‘isolated extremist’ could be seen as a bit inappropriate after all” before going on to defend Obama’s sterling examples of success in the war we’re fighting, his outreach to the Muslim world, the keeping of his campaign promise to send more troops to Afghanistan. I think it’s pretty obvious that I was just grabbing a convenient two word phrase to summarize what I think the left’s approach to the war is. Napolitano’s “the system worked” would have done the same thing as they are both statements so blatantly out-of-touch with the realities of war that using them is, whattyacall, good branding. GWB had the same thing with the “mission accomplished” banner.

Originally Posted By: the left for 10 years, on GWB
To: Karl
From: THE PRESIDENT

Can I fly a plane to a lot of soldeirs and have one of those big flags that says MISSION BEEN DONE GOOD? Please.


Come on, liberals. If there’s a double standard you want to enforce about proper respect for the President of the United States, then at least have the courtesy to openly state it. Because you sure enjoy it when your prejudices are flattered, so at least admit you have them. I’m pretty sure I would disagree with a trillion-dollar spending healthcare/auto companies/bank-controlling, bowing to foreign leaders, complaining that the Senate is broken and the minority party has too much power, backroom deals in the dead of night-law-passing, temple-in-Germany-building President regardless of his skin color.

In the meantime:
Originally Posted By: ChrisW
And why does this mean giving Obama a pass for spending more than every President before him combined? Why does this mean giving Obama a pass for escalating the war when you marched in the streets against his predecessor? If passing legislation is this difficult with a large majority of both houses in Congress and the White House, then why are other people the extreme ones for disagreeing with any part of any law you support? These are very obvious questions that anyone who has no idea who this Glen Beck person is can think of and ask. Or Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, or the "evil rich" that never include any rich people voting Democrat or whoever. These are obvious questions that can be asked by people who take the idea of national security seriously, and it's not being brainwashed by Fox News to ask them.


Edited by ChrisW (11/26/10 11:00 AM)
Edit Reason: to show them all! BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!
_________________________
If This Be... PayPal!!!

"I think ChrisW is the funniest man in entertainment still alive..."
-- the perceptive Tom Spurgeon

Top
#580341 - 11/26/10 04:08 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: ChrisW]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
"What is the point of the Father Coughlin reference?"

It should be obvious.

"What is it with leftists and their obsession with radio? [...] Frankly if you’re this obsessed about people on AM radio, it says a lot more about you than anybody else."

Well, it'd be nice if political debate involved Strauss (or even Bloom), but if you want to talk about the conservative vox populi, then you sort of have to address the meatheads. Personally, I wish I had more time to read the great conservatives. When I want to think seriously and critically about leftism, I don't go to Michael Moore or that loudmouth on MSNBC. I'd suggest conservatives not waste their time with TV or AM radio, as well. It'll only make their arguments stronger to read actual thinkers. I'm not one of those guys who suggest political discourse is getting worse, but it's certainly getting more cluttered with propagandistic crap. I guess it serves a useful function for some to sift through all this nonsense, but I just don't care enough to do it. There's no edification, only a "yeah, it's, indeed, nonsense." I'd say that the last truly interesting popular leader the conservative movement had was Barry Goldwater. Been downhill from there.

"Like an 'uncool parent', you loudly point the way to something that screams 'I don’t want you to like this person!!!' Then you hand out a leaflet directing us to see that person and then seem mystified when people who don’t care one way or the other aren’t horrified by Beck. [...] But the free advertizing people who hate Rush have given him all these years makes him a legitimate option. Uhhhh, thanks, I guess. I’m happy with classic rock and a cd player when I drive. But at least I can tolerate people who choose other things, and am fine with permitting a capitalist enterprise that sustains them, me, you and everybody else in the country. I guess that’s more than you and everybody else invoking 'shut up Glenn Beck Sarah Palin talk radio' can conceive of.'"

You're deranged. I didn't bring up Beck or any other nincompoop you obviously support; you did. I ignore them. I'd prefer everyone ignore them, since they provide nothing of real value to anyone, including conservatives. I don't value following Rall's debates with Fox pundits -- it's all horseshit. That's why I'm dismissive of going point by point on whatever you heard from them. All political persuasions should be skeptical of this crap. It only makes for a dumber nation. Participating in debates with Birchers or the Klan is no more profitable than scientists having to argue with Creationists. Again, I guess factoids have to be countered, but culture is reduced to Phil Donahue. After bothering to counter one of your factoids, all you've done is repeat it, sans any counter-argument, and throw out more irrelevant factoids. I've learned that one can't expect much to come out of correcting the crazies. There is no rational common ground.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#580345 - 11/26/10 08:59 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: Charles Reece]
Peter Urkowitz Offline
Member

Registered: 08/28/00
Posts: 3231
Loc: Salem, MA, USA
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
You don't seem to be disagreeing with Bromwich on Obama's tactics, Peter, just on what they signify. Bromwich participates in a roundtable on the recent elections.


I think there are some specific things that I could have disagreed with Bromwich about, but overall I thought he was focusing on the wrong thing, tactics instead of results. He may have been right about some of the tactics, he may not be, but I don't have the insider information to really argue one way or another in most cases. Overall I doubt that Bromwich himself has that kind of insider information, so all his claims are suspect.

For example, in that roundtable, this statement seems entirely false to me: "The President’s immobility and near speechlessness regarding the BP spill seemed to say that he wished it had not happened and wished that people were not looking at him." On the contrary, I saw Obama as highly active and engaged throughout the BP spill crisis. Of course it was a tragedy that nobody wanted to have occur, but Obama consistently took responsibility in a "the buck stops here" way. He made sure that BP will pay for the damage they caused, and his administration is still actively investigating the specifics of corporate culpability, and responsible regulations are being put in place to stop it happening again. So that's just one example where i think Bromwich is wrong on facts as well as interpretation.

Top
#580347 - 11/26/10 09:10 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: ChrisW]
Peter Urkowitz Offline
Member

Registered: 08/28/00
Posts: 3231
Loc: Salem, MA, USA
Originally Posted By: ChrisW
Originally Posted By: madget
Any cursory examination of government spending since the 80s will dispel that. In fact most of what I've seen strongly suggests that Republicans are far worse spenders than Democrats. I do think the Democrats tend to be disappointing pansies about defending themselves against that line of attack, however. Republicans are much, much better at getting away with spouting pure bullshit than Democrats are.


Don’t tell me you wrote this with a straight face.


Here's a link to a recent posting at the Atlantic website, saying the same thing, with evidence:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/where-did-our-debt-come-from/66530/

Top
#580348 - 11/26/10 10:18 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: Peter Urkowitz]
madget Offline
Member

Registered: 05/11/01
Posts: 4870
Originally Posted By: ChrisW
Just because you say I’m ignoring it does not make it so. You refuse to acknowledge that I am addressing it, but that does not make it so.


Addressing it? All I see is you squawking at your keyboard, writing weird stream-of-consciousness paragraphs filled with bizarre "asides" to other equally irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and changing the subject when you're called on bullshit. Most of what you write barely even makes sense.

Don't you usually post drunk, though? That'd explain a little.

Originally Posted By: ChrisW
So how do you explain that the right was quite sympathetic over his difficulties with General McChrystal and quite supported his picking General “Betray-us”?


I was talking about you, specifically. I wouldn't dream of lumping you together with everyone else on the right.

Originally Posted By: ChrisW
Yes, President Bush has been extraordinarily classy to his successor. Thank you for noticing.


You're welcome!

Originally Posted By: ChrisW
Don’t tell me you wrote this with a straight face.


Hey, disillusion me if you want. But it'll take actual evidence and facts, not your bizarre drunken interpretation of some random Obama sound byte.

Like I said, I'm no economist, though the one guy here who does have some credentials in that field has confirmed the assertion.

K

Top
#580354 - 11/27/10 10:22 AM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: ChrisW]
Allen Montgomery Offline
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7082
Originally Posted By: ChrisW
War time, remember?

Then, uh, shouldn't you be soldiering? Rather than ranting incoherently on a messageboard?
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#580356 - 11/27/10 12:43 PM Re: Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats [Re: madget]
ChrisW Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/00
Posts: 10034
Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
Originally Posted By: madget
Originally Posted By: ChrisW
Just because you say I’m ignoring it does not make it so. You refuse to acknowledge that I am addressing it, but that does not make it so.


Addressing it? All I see is you squawking at your keyboard, writing weird stream-of-consciousness paragraphs filled with bizarre "asides" to other equally irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and changing the subject when you're called on bullshit. Most of what you write barely even makes sense.


The fact that you can’t follow ideas does not make them “squawking”. I’ve been consistently applying the same basic ideas. I’ve also been asking a lot of questions, based directly on those ideas, because that’s what people do when they want clarification. By people, I don’t mean “liberals”, who dismiss things they don’t understand with words like “squawking” or “talk radio parrot” as you do.

Quote:
Don't you usually post drunk, though? That'd explain a little.


So how do you figure that I’ve hardly touched alcohol in the last year? That would mean I think the way I think regardless of altered circumstances – did anything change when I enlisted? - and you can’t tell the difference. So your explanation to yourself is potentially-damaging to your own arguments if you persist in, how did you put it, “bizarre ‘asides’ to other equally irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with the topic at hand”. Sounds like a case of projection, and far from the first. It might explain why you dismiss anything too challenging for your mind as “squawking” and “talk radio parrot”.

Feel free to ask questions by the way. Here are a few directly rated to the conversation that I’d like to know:

Quote:
And why does this mean giving Obama a pass for spending more than every President before him combined? Why does this mean giving Obama a pass for escalating the war when you marched in the streets against his predecessor? If passing legislation is this difficult with a large majority of both houses in Congress and the White House, then why are other people the extreme ones for disagreeing with any part of any law you support? These are very obvious questions that anyone who has no idea who this Glen Beck person is can think of and ask. Or Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, or the "evil rich" that never include any rich people voting Democrat or whoever. These are obvious questions that can be asked by people who take the idea of national security seriously, and it's not being brainwashed by Fox News to ask them.


See, there’s “take the idea of national security seriously” again. I apply serious thoughts about national security to Molly Norris, the President’s speeches, domestic policies and the desperate need of so many people to dismiss things they don’t understand as “squawking” or “talk radio”.

Quote:
I was talking about you, specifically. I wouldn't dream of lumping you together with everyone else on the right.


Originally Posted By: madget doing exactly what he says he wouldn’t dream of
but at least you wouldn't sound like a squalling talk radio parrot


Everybody on the right gets accused of sounding like a squalling talk radio parrot when they disagree with the left or the administration about anything. Even if the person on the right has nothing whatsoever to do with talk radio. Ten, fifteen years ago, they were just accused of sounding like Rush Limbaugh. Then they were accused of sounding like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Now it’s Rush, Fox, Glenn Beck and several other names.

Madget, I don’t have any reason to think you listen to any more talk radio than I do [i.e. not at all]. But it Air America is still in business and you’re explicitly parroting whatever one of their people says every day, I don’t care. I’m still addressing exactly the arguments you’re bringing, in the highest context possible. Just because you don’t like it or understand it doesn’t mean the problem lies outside you and your own highest context possible.

Whether it’s “there is no God but God”, national security or Lady Gaga [to pick a current pop culture fave at random], a different worldview is created by focusing on something all day, every day. It’s what makes us different as individuals, groups, communities, nations, and it’s really intolerant of diversity to dismiss disagreements as “squawking” and “talk radio parrot.” And that’s all you have to offer, regardless of how much talk radio you listen to. And here’s the thing, the enemy knows that about you also. [NATIONAL SECURITY REFERENCE RIGHT THERE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT]

Quote:
Hey, disillusion me if you want. But it'll take actual evidence and facts, not your bizarre drunken interpretation of some random Obama sound byte.


Ok. I’m not a link person, but here you go. Something somebody somewhere wrote sometime.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33348615/ns/politics-more_politics
_________________________
If This Be... PayPal!!!

"I think ChrisW is the funniest man in entertainment still alive..."
-- the perceptive Tom Spurgeon

Top
Page 9 of 17 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 17 >