View Full Version : Can We Just DUMP all social issues?
Can we just take all Social Issues and just dump them in the dumpster. Both parties, dump it all.
Who cares.
The economy is not being addressed.
We got new republican majority in our state senate and they just passed a bill about how to lay off teachers. c'mon.
In this economy, they are passing bills on how to lay off people.
Give me a break.
Then they are doing gay marriage stuff too.
Enough.
I could care less if NO ONE can get married but gee i kinda care about my job.
ugh.
Probably not! After all, we are a congregate species, and what's the point of having a government and an economy if not to support our lives in society? They are not seperable.
ApatheticNoMore
2-28-12, 1:36am
heydude, I agree, dump the culture war "issues".
perhaps it's a matter of priorities?
so what gets priority and why?
why would economic issues come before social justice issues (ie, gay marriage, employment law, etc?)?
Probably not! After all, we are a congregate species, and what's the point of having a government and an economy if not to support our lives in society? They are not seperable.
Absolutely right! We are the government and the government is us!
Absolutely right! We are the government and the government is us!
l'état, c'est moi ?
perhaps it's a matter of priorities?
I say that is certainly the case. The problem is that there's some kind of short circuit between us and our elected officials. At lease most of us on this board seem to agree that the economy needs to be addressed before most other issues. That seems so basic. You can't fix anything if you don't have the money to do it, right? What kills me is how so many people who come from the left, the right AND the middle of the road can agree on that general principal and yet Washington seems to be willing to wait till the bloody end to get started. And yes, we all know why they are waiting. God forbid that anything good might get started on someone else's watch. Blaa, blaa, blaa.
One big problem, things like gay marriage notwithstanding, is that social issues ARE part of our economic predicament. There are arguments over healthcare, elder care, education, unemployment, and other things that deeply affect our "social situation," at least when it comes to where funding for the safety net will come from, and what form the safety net should take. (Depending on one's political bent, that might be No Net At All or might be Nets For All No Matter What They Do, or anything in between.) It seems that certain social issues are inextricably tied to our economic decisions.
Something has to give, though.
I love how our totally unnecessary, hugely expensive, and never-ending wars are always off the table as we gleefully throw the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the environment under the nearest armored Humvee. Rant off.
Rant off.
Right on... Good rant, thanks.
JaneV2.0
War in Iraq? No Problem.
Afghanistan? Where do we sign?
Bail Out Wallstreet? You fill in the amount.
Auto Industry? We'll western union it.
Extend Unemployment? WHAT! We need a funding source in the form of cuts before we'll pass that!
Heatlhcare? Wait wait wait, HOLD UP! Healthcare? HEX NO, we are not made of money!
And that, heydude, is the situation in a nutshell. We are a very diverse country and can't agree on what's critical and what's not. I don't even think it's possible. Like the bailouts -- there are those among us who think that if those hadn't occurred, there would be a staggering amount of suffering all around us right now from which we may never recover. There are others who think there wouldn't be anything of the sort. And others still who don't care about suffering as long as they have their own safety net. We have all three of those groups amply represented here in our own little SLN microcosm :)
My husband has a way of shrugging and saying simply, "Democracy. Can't live with it, wouldn't want to live without it." I wish I could be so calm about it all.
I have to say I think the auto industry loans were a huge success. Detroit can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, the banks seem to be doing everything they can not to keep their end of the bargain.
HappyHiker
2-28-12, 2:00pm
JaneV2.0
War in Iraq? No Problem.
Afghanistan? Where do we sign?
Bail Out Wallstreet? You fill in the amount.
Auto Industry? We'll western union it.
Extend Unemployment? WHAT! We need a funding source in the form of cuts before we'll pass that!
Heatlhcare? Wait wait wait, HOLD UP! Healthcare? HEX NO, we are not made of money!
Heydude,
Wonderfully succinct and right on! Seems we have a government here "of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation."
Sad, isn't it?
I have to say I think the auto industry loans were a huge success. Detroit can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, the banks seem to be doing everything they can not to keep their end of the bargain.
But they - and I believe almost all other bailout receipients - have paid back that money with interest. I'm in the camp that says it was a good thing to bailout the companies as I believe the economic fallout would have been MUCH worse.
As for social issues - well those things are just as important as financial/economic/military issues IMHO. Making public policy, upholding (or not) constitutional rights, etc... are the very fabric of a free democracy and should be factored in when deciding who to vote for.
ApatheticNoMore
2-28-12, 2:18pm
But they - and I believe almost all other bailout receipients - have paid back that money with interest. I'm in the camp that says it was a good thing to bailout the companies as I believe the economic fallout would have been MUCH worse
No. Only TARP, not if you look at the full extent of what went on. The extent of bailouts done by the federal reserve exceed TARP by levels of magnitude. We are talking billions (TARP) versus trillions (federal reserve back door bailouts). Consider that things like this were going on, banks were borrowing from the fed at low interst rates and taking that money and investing it in treasuries at high interest rates:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=bf584e1c-ff74-4ded-9049-eb4aef4bdf92
A bank engaging in a little of that and they've more than paid off TARP! But the government and the taxpayers are ultimately footing the cost.
The new bank settlement may actually be a bank bailout:
"Under the terms of the 50-state mortgage foreclosure settlement, US taxpayers could end up paying billions in penalties that were supposed to be paid by the banks. That’s the gist of a front-page story which appeared in the Financial Times on Thursday, February 17. The widely-cited article by Shahien Nasiripour notes that the 5 banks that will be effected by the settlement — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial – will be able to use Obama’s mortgage modification program (HAMP) to reduce loan balances and “receive cash payments of up to 63 cents on the dollar for every dollar of loan principal forgiven.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/21/why-hasnt-anyone-gone-to-jail/
l'état, c'est moi ?
...and the government is us. 'We' and 'us' being the operative words.
Yeah. We don't live in a monarchy.
Yeah. We don't live in a monarchy.
I’ll take an honest king over this kind of piffle inviting me to identify with the State anytime. I don’t always agree with Murray Rothbard, but we are in accord on this topic.
“With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.”
...I’ll take an honest king over this kind of piffle inviting me to identify with the State anytime. I don’t always agree with Murray Rothbard, but we are in accord on this topic.... ...(LDAHL)
That brings up a good point. There' a cohort of people who really want an authoritarian father figure in their lives--you see it in monarchies, dictatorships, cults, traditional patriarchal families, and mainstream religions. Our Founding Fathers weren't that sort. Most of them were skeptical of mainstream religion, all rejected the monarchy, and of course they were famous for enshrining "We the People" in the Preamble to the Constitution.
And that, heydude, is the situation in a nutshell. We are a very diverse country and can't agree on what's critical and what's not.
The basic fallacy of the U.S. is that, because we speak a single language*, we have a common culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.
* I see no evidence that significant numbers of children born in the 50 states don't learn English.
The U.S. is a multinational state, with dramatically different cultures. As a child of immigrants from Ireland who grew up in the Northeastern U.S., I would be far more socially comfortable in Ireland, Greater London, or New Zealand than I would be in west Texas or North Dakota.
Because we deny these dramatic differences, our assumptions of how to structure a government are fundamentally flawed. It is hard enough to make social or tax policy in Maryland, where 90% of the population lives inside a circle 60 miles across. Trying to set more than broad standards for southern California, Maine, and Texas from Washington is insane.
[QUOTE=LDAHL;69771]I’ll take an honest king over this kind of piffle inviting me to identify with the State anytime. I don’t always agree with Murray Rothbard, but we are in accord on this topic. ... ...
That brings up a good point. There' a cohort of people who really want an authoritarian father figure in their lives--you see it in monarchies, dictatorships, cults, traditional patriarchal families, and mainstream religions. Our Founding Fathers weren't that sort. Most of them were skeptical of mainstream religion, all rejected the monarchy, and of course they were famous for enshrining "We the People" in the Preamble to the Constitution.
That’s right. “We the People” are signing this document assigning a central government with powers strictly limited to those enumerated herein, and explicitly forbidding extension of those limits (although I wish they had worded the commerce clause a little more tightly). The federal government was designed as a limited-use tool, not as a proxy for some kind of extended family. We allowed government some basic housekeeping chores, and would take care of the rest ourselves.
Flapdoodle about how we are all somehow connected through the nexus of government encourages all sorts of foolishness and usurpations in that it justifies the growth of government power at the expense of everything else.
[QUOTE=JaneV2.0;69803]
That’s right. “We the People” are signing this document assigning a central government with powers strictly limited to those enumerated herein, and explicitly forbidding extension of those limits (although I wish they had worded the commerce clause a little more tightly). The federal government was designed as a limited-use tool, not as a proxy for some kind of extended family. We allowed government some basic housekeeping chores, and would take care of the rest ourselves.
Flapdoodle about how we are all somehow connected through the nexus of government encourages all sorts of foolishness and usurpations in that it justifies the growth of government power at the expense of everything else.
No it doesn't . Thinking the government is some alien, separate entity is what causes trouble. We are the government and the government is us is how we (founding fathers) set the whole thing up. We have the power to form the government, by election, voting, and we have the power to take it down, vote their butts out, rise up in opposition, like the people in VA who rose up against the invasive ultrasound. That was a clear case of 'we are the government'. We have a voice, and we should have a voice. Passively saying "oh, it's the government, not me" kind of absolves you of responsibility. And of course it's a good rallying cry to get the peasants whipped up into a frenzy of 'taking the government back', although the peasants never seem to notice that each and every election is supposedly 'taking the government back', and nobody ever asks to what? Bush? Really? Is that what the republicans want to take it back to?
What bothers me is that this view of government as enemy disenfranchises just about everyone. The government is a tool WE THE PEOPLE use to order and run our country, period, and until we start 'owning' that, we will just go on and on fighting this shadow, never winning. It's a tool. Look at it that way. If a tool isn't working for you, you go get another tool, or you reshape the tool to work. The very wealthy understand this. They've worked that tool to fit their need, then convinced the emotional masses that it's not their tool to refit. Keeping the masses mad at 'the government' is a distraction away from a simple problem of how do we retool this.
Here is an example. You have a lawn mower that is cutting too close. It scalps some of the higher parts of your gently rolling lawn. You can either mow the lower parts, raise the blade and mow the rest, or mow all at a higher blade setting. Do you get mad at the lawn mower? Do you get mad at the lawn? No, you simply look at the job , mowing, and at the tool, lawn mower, and decide the best way to do the job. You fit the mower to the job. The government is like this. We need to identify the job, then fit the tool, the government, to the job. We may need to adjust it as we go along because, like the lawn, not everything is flat and equal.
Be wary of those who try to convince you that you aren't a part of this government/country. Don't fall prey to the heightened rhetoric of non-existent scenarios like FEMA re-education death camps, or people being jailed for opposition opinion. This isn't happening. The only way these things could happen is if you abdicate yourself from the ability to stop it, (and by you I mean all of us) which is the point of telling you over and over 'move along, nothing to see here, you aren't a part of this government, you have no voice'. Don't you buy it!
You know why we went to Iraq? Sure, George Bush lied and pushed and got what he and Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted, but the Congress is to blame, and I'm blaming the Democratic congress as much as the republican. And this is why. They abdicated their responsibility to an incurious, ignorant frat boy under the excuse of 'this is beyond our control'. They let the emotional rhetoric overwhelm their reason.
Viewing government as enemy makes about as much sense as viewing the screwdriver as enemy because you can't cut a board with it.
But, it's in the best interest of some to, first, convince us to keep our hands off THEIR tool, and second, it's really the liberals, or conservatives who are the real enemy. And by that 'the government' who just happens to be controlled by 'the other side', from whom we need to TAKE THE GOVERNMENT BACK!
Government is a tool, an institution. It’s not a culture or society. Saying “we are the government, and the government is us” is like saying “we are the torque wrench, and the torque wrench is us”. Or perhaps “we are the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Department of Motor Vehicles is us.”
The framers wisely wrote a constitution designed to keep government off our backs rather than create a genie to grant our wishes. Treating it like the head of some kind of extended family exalts the collective over the individual in a way that will ultimately be unhealthy for both. Suspicion of government power is a proud American tradition, and an excellent inoculation against Political messiahs selling the latest in snake oil.
I prefer "I own the torque wrench, and if it doesn't do the work I purchased it to do, I'm going to junk it and buy another." I also buy my tools with a great deal of care and scrutiny, rather than trusting mass media to tell me what to buy. No, I'm not the government, but I do make intelligent decisions on what government to purchase, based on my own unique set of needs, wishes, beliefs, and values, and NOT on which one Fox News promises me will be the best one.
If only our government came with a lifetime guarantee.
Government is a tool, an institution. It’s not a culture or society. Saying “we are the government, and the government is us” is like saying “we are the torque wrench, and the torque wrench is us”. Or perhaps “we are the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Department of Motor Vehicles is us.”
The framers wisely wrote a constitution designed to keep government off our backs rather than create a genie to grant our wishes. Treating it like the head of some kind of extended family exalts the collective over the individual in a way that will ultimately be unhealthy for both. Suspicion of government power is a proud American tradition, and an excellent inoculation against Political messiahs selling the latest in snake oil.
Exactly! It is a tool. When I say we are the government and the government is us, I'm simply trying to own it. I'm trying to point out that it's not some enemy to line up against a wall and shoot. It's simply the system we use to order our country. And it's worked pretty good so far.
But this isn't what the elected leaders in government, nor the screaming talking heads are saying. Oh it's the way people used to view it, know it, and we all got along so much better. Sure there were policy differences, there are two (+) parties out there who have different views of how to govern, but for the most part we all understood this and tried to find compromise. In a country this big and this complicated, not everyone is going to be satisfied, but we can find common ground if everyone just moves a bit in the other direction.
But that's not what's happening now. It's not just policy differences, it's 'the liberals hate America and are trying to ruin it'. It's 'your working harder for less because the liberals are playing class warfare...oh and they hate America!' Oh I would put up examples of liberal trashing but to tell the truth, they really aren't very good at it, although some are learning. But it's funny how the government is never the enemy when republicans are in charge...
Rabble rousers and agitators use the ignorance of the masses to their advantage. They want to get their guy elected? Saying he has another economic plan that we think will work doesn't get more than a yawn. But say the opposing guy is a Kenyan Muslim who panders to terrorist, hates America and is personally responsible for higher gas prices, your in! Tell them he is trying to take away their god and guns, and they have their pitchforks all ready to storm the village. These nasty voices don't want the masses to know that gas is a commodity that is traded on the world market, and that is what determines the price. No, they want them ignorant, and whipped into a frenzy. Why, even the guy running for President has said so, and received a round of applause from the ignorant. (who apparently didn't realize the snob talking has 3degrees)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A
Anyway, I digress. We are the government and the government is us simply acknowledges that our government isn't a dictatorship or monarchy, but a system manned by us, you, me, our neighbors. Even bae here is part of that machine, and trying, I'm sure, to order it to the best of his ability. And I'm sure he would be the first to tell you that he doesn't always get his way, but that compromise is the way. It's not his government, it's not my government, it's our government. We used to know this.
Oh it's the way people used to view it, know it, and we all got along so much better.
When was that? 1968? The Whiskey Rebellion? Bleeding Kansas? The Civil War? The Pullman Strike? The Red Scare? We haven't fallen from grace, we were never there in the first place.
When was that? 1968? The Whiskey Rebellion? Bleeding Kansas? The Civil War? The Pullman Strike? The Red Scare? We haven't fallen from grace, we were never there in the first place.
I think it goes back to the basic fallacy of the U.S. having a common culture.
The differences between regions and peoples in the U.S. are too big to bridge without balancing between an authoritarian government and high levels of internal violence.
...[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]The framers wisely wrote a constitution designed to keep government off our backs rather than create a genie to grant our wishes. Treating it like the head of some kind of extended family exalts the collective over the individual in a way that will ultimately be unhealthy for both. ....
It disturbs me to see the riots about austerity measures in Europe. Clearly those populations view their good Nanny G as the granter of swell genie wishes. Awful.
But representatives used to at least talk to each other. Sure, there was fighting and disagreements, but they at least talked to each other, and the goal was to compromise and actually get something done. Soot, they even lived together in boarding houses. I'll bet the dinner table was a noisy and irksome place, but the point being they had dinner together. The climate IS different now days. Just because there have always been differences doesn't make it the same. And in the past there was some pretty bad behaviour, but everyone, on both sides recognized it as bad behaviour and acknowledged it. Now, negative advertising for one side is to accuse someone of ACTUALLY WORKING WITH SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER PARTY! Not only is bad behaviour accepted, but celebrated. If you want to get elected now days, just promise to never ever talk to them, work with them or compromise! Putting gun sites on your opponents head is cheered and laughed about, and wearing guns to political rallies is trumpeted as some sort of god given right! These yahoos, who by the way are NOT responsible gun owners/adults or they wouldn't wear a side arm to a POLITICAL RALLY,
just see Gabby Giffords as collateral damage in their war against the EVIL...other half of the country. Their countrymen. These inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together have allowed the screamers, Rush Beck, Fox, and the political (so called) leaders who are trying to take advantage of this climate, into believing other Americans are their sworn enemies. Not political opponents, or ideological opposites, but ENEMIES to be eradicated! Literally!
But representatives used to at least talk to each other. Sure, there was fighting and disagreements, but they at least talked to each other, and the goal was to compromise and actually get something done.
When was that? When Burr shot Hamilton? When Brooks beat Sumner senseless on the Senate floor? I think you're idealizing the past. If I heard major politicians referring to their opposition as "those inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together", or accusing them of wanting to eradicate them, I'd be more inclined to worry. But claiming these to be uniquely divided times strikes me as a bit of an overstatement.
This is by far the most contentious Congress in my memory. Politics used to be about the art of the deal, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were famous for their collegial relationship, Lyndon Johnson was well-known for deft arm-twisting to get votes on both sides of the aisle, filibusters--or the threat of them--were never business as usual. A senate majority was 51 votes. Maybe we should just throw in the towel and carve up the country by socio-political zones into two or three new ones. I won't have to move, and there's a Cascadia flag all ready to go.
This is by far the most contentious Congress in my memory. Politics used to be about the art of the deal, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were famous for their collegial relationship, Lyndon Johnson was well-known for deft arm-twisting to get votes on both sides of the aisle, filibusters--or the threat of them--were never business as usual. A senate majority was 51 votes. Maybe we should just throw in the towel and carve up the country by socio-political zones into two or three new ones. I won't have to move, and there's a Cascadia flag all ready to go.
There used to be these circles of idealogy that overlapped in an area called compromise. Over time I think the left has shifted right, but the right has shifted right so much more quickly those circles don't overlap anymore. And there is no overlapping area to compromise in anymore. What's worse is I think many structure their ideologies these days not so much on what they believe in but just so there is no area of overlap to compromise in.
But representatives used to at least talk to each other. Sure, there was fighting and disagreements, but they at least talked to each other, and the goal was to compromise and actually get something done. Soot, they even lived together in boarding houses. I'll bet the dinner table was a noisy and irksome place, but the point being they had dinner together. The climate IS different now days. Just because there have always been differences doesn't make it the same. And in the past there was some pretty bad behaviour, but everyone, on both sides recognized it as bad behaviour and acknowledged it. Now, negative advertising for one side is to accuse someone of ACTUALLY WORKING WITH SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER PARTY! Not only is bad behaviour accepted, but celebrated. If you want to get elected now days, just promise to never ever talk to them, work with them or compromise!
Putting gun sites on your opponents head is cheered and laughed about, and wearing guns to political rallies is trumpeted as some sort of god given right! These yahoos, who by the way are NOT responsible gun owners/adults or they wouldn't wear a side arm to a POLITICAL RALLY,
just see Gabby Giffords as collateral damage in their war against the EVIL...other half of the country. Their countrymen. These inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together have allowed the screamers, Rush Beck, Fox, and the political (so called) leaders who are trying to take advantage of this climate, into believing other Americans are their sworn enemies. Not political opponents, or ideological opposites, but ENEMIES to be eradicated! Literally!
I am not aware of anyone that cheered for what happened to Gabby Giffords. If they did, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Target is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone meant it in the literal sense except the distrurbed person who committed this unspeakable act. The talking heads on MSNBC were quite aware that no one meant it in the literal sense but were opportunistic in their hatred of wing when given the opportunity.
Why are law abiding citizens who happen to have a firearm suddenly irresponsible?
MSNBC and Air America are/were the left wing verions of Fox. This type of over the top journalism isn't a right wing thing or a left wing thing.
I value other opinons and try not to refer to others in derogatory terms. Refering to the other side as inbred idiots doesn't really further understanding in any manner.
Finally, if you are angry about the present state of political discourse in the this country, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone besides the current President. He came in promising to unite the country and has done exactly the opposite.
If only our government came with a lifetime guarantee.
It's called the ballot box. Imperfect, but what human design isn't?
When was that? When Burr shot Hamilton? When Brooks beat Sumner senseless on the Senate floor? I think you're idealizing the past. If I heard major politicians referring to their opposition as "those inbred idiots without two grey cells to rub together", or accusing them of wanting to eradicate them, I'd be more inclined to worry. But claiming these to be uniquely divided times strikes me as a bit of an overstatement.
I said there was bad behaviour, but these idiots weren't cheered on by their colleagues. For the most part they did get along and they DID compromise. They never ran on 'I'm not working with the other party no matter what" They didn't actively try to divide America like the 'leaders' today. The last time our country was divided like this we paid the price in hundreds of thousands of lives. but apparently many don't see it that way. I guess we don't learn from history, do we.
And never has a President been shown such little respect as President Obama. Just another symptom of the corrosive nastiness that's accepted today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/allen-west-liberals-get-out-florida-primary-2012_n_1239247.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/16/390789/rep-allen-west-if-joseph-goebbels-was-around-hed-be-very-proud-of-the-democrat-party/?mobile=nc
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 1:19pm
It disturbs me to see the riots about austerity measures in Europe. Clearly those populations view their good Nanny G as the granter of swell genie wishes. Awful.
Things like NDAA pass and there is a total lack of riots (or much less even protests). That disturbs me more. Blind obedience and looking the other way is scarier to me than politically aware hell-raisers. And I don't know, I think a society is either prone to one or the other and I'm not sure you can slice and dice it so finely to have only the good without the bad. In some socities the reason the people are very obedient is of course because it's been scared into them (by totalitarian measures).
I am not aware of anyone that cheered for what happened to Gabby Giffords. If they did, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Target is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone meant it in the literal sense except the distrurbed person who committed this unspeakable act. The talking heads on MSNBC were quite aware that no one meant it in the literal sense but were opportunistic in their hatred of wing when given the opportunity.
Why are law abiding citizens who happen to have a firearm suddenly irresponsible?
MSNBC and Air America are/were the left wing verions of Fox. This type of over the top journalism isn't a right wing thing or a left wing thing.
I value other opinons and try not to refer to others in derogatory terms. Refering to the other side as inbred idiots doesn't really further understanding in any manner.
Finally, if you are angry about the present state of political discourse in the this country, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone besides the current President. He came in promising to unite the country and has done exactly the opposite.
I"m sorry, I guess you misunderstood me...or you didn't read what I wrote. I suspect the latter.
Target may be a figure of speech, but an actual cross hairs target on Representative Giffords district, is a target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0GRCSWlwU
I never said law abiding citizens who happen to own guns were irresponsible. I said inbred idiots who think it's ok to carry side arms to a political rally are not responsible citizens (in response to the oft presented argument that people who carry are such well trained, responsible citizens) Again, more careful reading would help you avoid these misunderstandings.
no, nasty, over the top (I won't call it journalism as that insults real journalism) is clearly a right wing thing. MSNBC has maybe 5 political opinion shows during the broadcast day, and they regularly have conservatives on for REAL balanced journalism. (OK there is one or two that don't regularly have conservatives on) compared to Fox 24/7 anti liberal, anti-Obama, anti anything that even appears to be something liberals are for. I swear if liberals came out for apple pie and mother hood, they would find a way to be against it. Oh, wait, I have an example. Think these good, god fearing people are for family and the sanctity of marriage? Well, not so much!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/
Boy, you just can't make this stuff up!
I didn't refer to the other side as inbred idiots. I referred to the IDIOTS as idiots. They know who they are..Well, maybe they don't. They are idiots after all!
There are plenty of conservatives on this board and I don't think they are inbred idiots.
As far as this President being divisive? Well, only people who think fox is fair and balanced and all the information they need would think so. But anyone who actually followed what was going on in Washington, and how this President has practically bent himself into a pretzel accommodating the republicans would know different.
I"m sorry, I guess you misunderstood me...or you didn't read what I wrote. I suspect the latter.
Target may be a figure of speech, but an actual cross hairs target on Representative Giffords district, is a target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0GRCSWlwU
I never said law abiding citizens who happen to own guns were irresponsible. I said inbred idiots who think it's ok to carry side arms to a political rally are not responsible citizens (in response to the oft presented argument that people who carry are such well trained, responsible citizens) Again, more careful reading would help you avoid these misunderstandings.
no, nasty, over the top (I won't call it journalism as that insults real journalism) is clearly a right wing thing. MSNBC has maybe 5 political opinion shows during the broadcast day, and they regularly have conservatives on for REAL balanced journalism. (OK there is one or two that don't regularly have conservatives on) compared to Fox 24/7 anti liberal, anti-Obama, anti anything that even appears to be something liberals are for. I swear if liberals came out for apple pie and mother hood, they would find a way to be against it. Oh, wait, I have an example. Think these good, god fearing people are for family and the sanctity of marriage? Well, not so much!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/
Boy, you just can't make this stuff up!
I didn't refer to the other side as inbred idiots. I referred to the IDIOTS as idiots. They know who they are..Well, maybe they don't. They are idiots after all!
There are plenty of conservatives on this board and I don't think they are inbred idiots.
As far as this President being divisive? Well, only people who think fox is fair and balanced and all the information they need would think so. But anyone who actually followed what was going on in Washington, and how this President has practically bent himself into a pretzel accommodating the republicans would know different.
I read what you wrote and am quite aware of the crosshairs. Neither were meant in the literal sense. I suspect both you and MSNBC are aware of that.
It someone is obeying the law, they are not idiots for bringing an object to a political rally.
I watch both MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Neither MSNBC or Fox are fair and balanced. MSNBC is every bit as hateful as Fox.
With regards to Obama bending over backwards, I don't perceive it that way.
Respectfully,
Midwest
I watch MSNBC on a regular basis, and I have seen them correct their own factual errors on air. I'm pretty good at fact-checking myself and observe that they seem to deal in solid facts along with their (often hilarious) partisan commentary. The leftie pundits I most admire are quick to cite their source material and invite their viewers/listeners to (gasp!) think for themselves.
I've also watched Fox, that characterized voter-registration organization Acorn as the racketeering arm of the Democrat/Communist party, and Van Jones look like a bomb-throwing anarchist instead of the environmentalist he actually is. And of course Shirley Sherrod was a rabid racist. Riiiiight. And how can we forget Glenn Beck.
It's always a good idea to listen to both sides, consider the source, and do your own research.
DocHolliday
3-2-12, 6:26pm
Peggy, would you be referring to the Obama healthcare rally where there was a guy outside carrying a gun? The same one that MSNBC edited the photos to create a "racial" side to the story, the part they left out was the guy was African-American...
Peggy, would you be referring to the Obama healthcare rally where there was a guy outside carrying a gun? The same one that MSNBC edited the photos to create a "racial" side to the story, the part they left out was the guy was African-American...
I remember that. Very amusing. :D
I watch MSNBC on a regular basis, and I have seen them correct their own factual errors on air. I'm pretty good at fact-checking myself and observe that they seem to deal in solid facts along with their (often hilarious) partisan commentary. The leftie pundits I most admire are quick to cite their source material and invite their viewers/listeners to (gasp!) think for themselves.
I've also watched Fox, that characterized voter-registration organization Acorn as the racketeering arm of the Democrat/Communist party, and Van Jones look like a bomb-throwing anarchist instead of the environmentalist he actually is. And of course Shirley Sherrod was a rabid racist. Riiiiight. And how can we forget Glenn Beck.
It's always a good idea to listen to both sides, consider the source, and do your own research.
It is absolutely always good to consider both sides. But just going with your comments I do have to ask, is there any chance you may have had your mind made up prior to hearing the other side?
"It is absolutely always good to consider both sides. But just going with your comments I do have to ask, is there any chance you may have had your mind made up prior to hearing the other side? "--Gregg
I've been a liberal all my life, so there is that. On the other hand, back when there were such individuals as moderate Republicans, I regularly voted for them. I've read, listened to, and watched conservative commentators as they've swung harder to the right and it has made me more certain than ever that their values are not in line with mine. I'm all for personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, order and justice, and many of the issues they pay lip service to, but mostly what I see beyond the lip service is a disdain for the "little people" (thank you, Leona Helmsley), overweening greed, and a lust for war that defies all reason. If you can point to a conservative writer who doesn't embody those "values," I'd be happy to read her/his work.
If you can point to a conservative writer who doesn't embody those "values," I'd be happy to read her/his work.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus.
early morning
3-3-12, 10:48am
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus
Not exactly a card-carrying member of the GOP, though. And a little too old to run for office............ perhaps Jane should have added the word "current" to her request for a conservative writer. ;)
Bae, I just knew you'd come up with a worthy fossil! I'm convinced you're either a time traveler or the Dos Equis guy. ;)
There's a libertarian blogger I read who disdains government at least partly because it has become so totally corrupted by corporate influence. I can't disagree with him; I just wish we could take control back.
Target is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone meant it in the literal sense except the distrurbed person who committed this unspeakable act.
All of us who remember hearing about congressional candidate Catherine Craybill saying in a speech "We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box" don't accept so lightly your contention that it's just a figure of speech.
And even if we did accept it as a figure of speech anyone who watches the news knows there are plenty of disturbed people out there who are all too ready to commit heinous acts, and to use targets and crosshairs in political advertising knowing full well that someone might take them literally seems quite irresponsible.
And even if we did accept it as a figure of speech anyone who watches the news knows there are plenty of disturbed people out there who are all too ready to commit heinous acts, and to use targets and crosshairs in political advertising knowing full well that someone might take them literally seems quite irresponsible.
Are you implying that Jared Lee Laughner's actions were influenced by campaign rhetoric? If so, that would be news to me.
When the Democrats used the word "target" and placed crosshairs on maps previously, was that just as bad or do they get a pass?
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/8217/dlctargetingmap.gif (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/dlctargetingmap.gif/)
Should we self-censor our expression on the off chance some random nutcase will be provoked by our words and run amok?
Should we self-censor our expression on the off chance some random nutcase will be provoked by our words and run amok?
Sometimes it's not a bad idea - and many people do when they feel it will cause some random nutcase to run amok over them. I see it all the time on public transit.
And certainly we should expect our political leaders to self-censor. When bae or Alan say 'lock and load' we may think it's not the best choice of words, considering the context of course, but when a national political figure talks of 'reloading' and how people who go to political rallies armed are such good patriots, while also having cross-hairs on a congresswoman's head/district, then, yea, I expect some self-censor. I also would expect some acknowledgement of at least some responsibility to the hateful climate that allowed a nut job to act on all that gun rhetoric.
Good thing I didn't hold my breath!
And certainly we should expect our political leaders to self-censor. When bae or Alan say 'lock and load' we may think it's not the best choice of words, considering the context of course, but when a national political figure talks of 'reloading' and how people who go to political rallies armed are such good patriots, while also having cross-hairs on a congresswoman's head/district, then, yea, I expect some self-censor. I also would expect some acknowledgement of at least some responsibility to the hateful climate that allowed a nut job to act on all that gun rhetoric.
Good thing I didn't hold my breath!
Putting words in my mouth again?
As long as I'm responding, I'll ask again, do you have any evidence that political rhetoric had anything to do with Jared Lee Laughner's actions? If not, are we simply engaging in inflamatory rhetoric ourselves?
I do not believe the phrase "lock and load" has ever passed my lips, in public or private. And I serve as a rangemaster a few days a month.
Putting words in my mouth again?
As long as I'm responding, I'll ask again, do you have any evidence that political rhetoric had anything to do with Jared Lee Laughner's actions? If not, are we simply engaging in inflamatory rhetoric ourselves?
We don't have any proof, nor do we have proof not. But just as yelling fire in a crowded theatre may not result in people trampling each other in an effort to get out it's still not something that reasonable people do because the result may just be that.
How is suggesting that potentially inflammatory rhetoric might be a bad idea inflammatory in itself?
How is suggesting that potentially inflammatory rhetoric might be a bad idea inflammatory in itself?
When attempts are made to link specific rhetoric to specific events, without proof, while ignoring other examples involving the same language and graphics, it seems apparent to me that the rhetorical coals are still smoldering.
Sometimes it's not a bad idea - and many people do when they feel it will cause some random nutcase to run amok over them. I see it all the time on public transit.
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/mother_goose/MG_12.gif
Oh God, yes!
When attempts are made to link specific rhetoric to specific events, without proof, while ignoring other examples involving the same language and graphics, it seems apparent to me that the rhetorical coals are still smoldering.
I suppose each of us is free to interpret if "targeting" is the same as using crosshairs. Personally I don't think so. I have accounts at work that I am targeting to get as clients. I never think of them as in my crosshairs. The two words are quite different to me.
When attempts are made to link specific rhetoric to specific events, without proof, while ignoring other examples involving the same language and graphics, it seems apparent to me that the rhetorical coals are still smoldering.
I suppose each of us is free to interpret if "targeting" is the same as using crosshairs. Personally I don't think so. I have accounts at work that I am targeting to get as clients. I shop at a store called Target that even uses a target as it's icon. . Marketers constantly are discussing target markets. Crosshairs are not used widely for anything other then to represent weapon sights for aiming. The two words are quite different to me.
I suppose each of us is free to interpret if "targeting" is the same as using crosshairs. Personally I don't think so. I have accounts at work that I am targeting to get as clients. I never think of them as in my crosshairs. The two words are quite different to me.
I'd consider it a distinction without a difference. Whether I am targeted or in your crosshairs, I'm sure to have your attention.
Crosshairs are not used widely for anything other then to represent weapon sights for aiming. The two words are quite different to me.
Crosshairs are widely used in astronomy and surveying instruments. Focusing reticles or crosshairs for photographic equipment. Etc.
Not weapon-specific, but aiming/attention/focusing specific.
See Robert Hooke's Micrographia, 1665.
I suppose each of us is free to interpret if "targeting" is the same as using crosshairs. Personally I don't think so. I have accounts at work that I am targeting to get as clients. I shop at a store called Target that even uses a target as it's icon. . Marketers constantly are discussing target markets. Crosshairs are not used widely for anything other then to represent weapon sights for aiming. The two words are quite different to me.
If any of the elected Repub. officials in Alan's posted Dem. graphic would have been assaulted by bow & arrow as the archer's target graphic might somehow suggest if literally interpreted by a lunatic, then there would be something to talk about.
Instead an elected official was gunned down following the unfortunate timing of the SarahPac graphic with the gun crosshairs.
Did Palin want a nut to go out and gun down Gabby Giffords, of course not.
Would that crime have happened without the SarahPac graphic? Probably, if not definitely.
Let just all thank our lucky stars that Palin has somehow been contained and we are not all subject to her logo'd bus tour family vacations any more.
Crosshairs are widely used in astronomy and surveying instruments. Focusing reticles or crosshairs for photographic equipment. Etc.
Not weapon-specific, but aiming/attention/focusing specific.
See Robert Hooke's Micrographia, 1665.
I stand corrected. Although, unlike the many common uses of target that most people are familiar with, I'd suspect that the most common association people have with crosshairs is with guns and not with astronomy and surveying instruments. And combining crosshairs and targets makes a very clear image of 'we're preparing to shoot you'. I doubt that astronomers target the planets they've got in their crosshairs...
I doubt that astronomers target the planets they've got in their crosshairs...
They do if they want to get a good image.
Actually, this nice lady I know is the longest-range target shooter I am acquainted with. She shoots at the moon, with a giant laser she feeds back through the telescope it is mounted on, and reflects it off the small reflector squares left by the Apollo missions, and uses that to calculate the earth-moon distance, which varies constantly, and feeds her data to the cosmologists.
The large box is the laser she bolted onto the telescope:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_DYDi47GabU/TLElz1sMbGI/AAAAAAAABow/lJZPGeZsSwo/s720/img_0707.jpg
Here's the target, or a spare copy of one they forgot to leave on the moon:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5nM9uqbCt1E/TLEl1pzVR-I/AAAAAAAABo4/vXOpT2vUI10/s720/img_0709.jpg
And the business end of the telescope:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-j1nCd7ChgVE/TLElrtA8rOI/AAAAAAAABoQ/RxtV8tKnxhQ/s720/img_0692.jpg
The telescope is used to aim the laser instrument, and then to focus it on the way out.
If any of the elected Repub. officials in Alan's posted Dem. graphic would have been assaulted by bow & arrow as the archer's target graphic might somehow suggest if literally interpreted by a lunatic, then we there would be something to talk about.
Instead an elected official was gunned down following the unfortunate timing of the SarahPac graphic with the gun crosshairs.
Did Palin want a nut to go out and gun down Gabby Giffords, of course not.
Would that crime have happened without the SarahPac graphic? Probably, if not definitely.
Let just all thank our lucky stars that Palin has somehow been contained and we are not all subject to her logo'd bus tour family vacations any more.
I have to admit, this post made me laugh.
They do if they want to get a good image.
Actually, this nice lady I know is the longest-range target shooter I am acquainted with. She shoots at the moon, with a giant laser she feeds back through the telescope it is mounted on, and reflects it off the small reflector squares left by the Apollo missions, and uses that to calculate the earth-moon distance, which varies constantly, and feeds her data to the cosmologists.
The large box is the laser she bolted onto the telescope:
The telescope is used to aim the laser instrument, and then to focus it on the way out.
So Bae, if we follow what you are proposing....
The crosshairs on the SarahPac graphic could be interpreted as the crosshairs of survey/astronomy/photography equipment
and she was employing this metaphor for her followers to study, size up the representatives in the targeted districts
?????
That metaphor doesn't make sense.
The aim of the crosshairs metaphor is to take out the opponent.
I personally love colorful sport/hunting/over the top language, but I am from the South - that's the way we do it, a la Carville to point to a Dem operative.
It just totally angers me to see you, Iris Lily and Alan have to go the mats constantly for complete nincompoops like Palin, Rush, Herman Cain, and whomever else.
I just saw Iron Lady about Margaret Thatcher --- whom I really didn't know a whole lot about.... where is our Margaret Thatcher?
Why is the US Conservative movement today so enmeshed with all of these clowns that any of us could take out in a Trivial Pursuit game?
I'm not going to the mats for any of those folks, sorry.
I'm just objecting to partisans continually making mountains out of molehills, polluting our civil discourse. On any/all "sides".
It's no wonder people of quality rarely decide to step up and participate in the political process.
I have to admit, this post made me laugh.
It does require something of a leap in logic doesn't it?
Would that crime have happened without the Angry Birds app? Probably, if not definitely.
The crosshairs on the SarahPac graphic could be interpreted as the crosshairs of survey/astronomy/photography equipment and she was employing this metaphor for her followers to study, size up the representatives in the targeted districts
Not so terribly long ago (in my life) having someone "in my crosshairs" had exactly that meaning. It still does to me. There are several in my family that refer to a soda as "pop". The urban dictionary gives "to shoot" as an alternative meaning to that same word. I do not duck and cover when someone asks if I want a pop. That would be just as ridiculous as if I built a bunker because someone told me I was the "target" of a marketing survey. Colloquialisms are part of life in the USA (and presumably most other places). I don't know when our collective sphincter slammed shut so tight that we now have no appreciation for (as mtnlaurel perfectly described it) colorful language.
Regardless, we can all come up with plenty of explanation as to why Sarah Palin surely didn't have guns in mind when she was putting people in her crosshairs. However, the reason that I, and others, did get that meaning from her was because when considering what someone says I take into account not just the immediate communication at hand. In the case of Gregg and his relatives that likely means that he doesn't expect them to shoot him. In the case of Sarah Palin that means taking into account the many times she's spoken out in favor of Second Amendment rights and about evil democrats that want to take them away. Not to mention that she has a sizable following who are much more into guns then telescopes. If she had honestly not intended a weapons motif when using crosshairs she could have used camera or telescope imagery or whatever to make that clear. And with all the political consultants out there that pick through every single word of every marketing piece or advertisement that a politician releases, I find it difficult to believe that her crosshairs meant anything other then guns. They didn't have to be that blunt because they knew that people would come to that conclusion.
I'm amazed that we're still talking about crosshairs. Does anyone have any evidence that violence was committed as a result of a political poster?
I'm amazed that we're still talking about crosshairs.
I'm not at all.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - Some British Guy
ApatheticNoMore
3-4-12, 3:30pm
I don't like the agenda it is used to smuggle in (which no is not actually leftism or anything of the sort). I think it is some kind of milquetoast discorse when noone says anything with any real fire. The world is going straight to heck in a handbasket (and oh with global warming, fascism on the march, and a rickety growth dependent economic system it really is), but the most important thing in the universe is that our words never be offensive to anyone. Yea, if there is any history, how do you think that is going to be judged? But that's the agenda I think is really being smuggled in.
Someone passing by my desk the other day commenting on wealth inequality said to someone else: "what this country needs is a revolution". I sat there silently smiling thinking: "that's the spirit!". With a full understanding that it is hyperbowl. This guy probably isn't even politically radical much less a revolutionary - I can't even conceive of it. If someone literally wanted a revolution I would be more like: I'm not saying it's not morally justified, but you do realize the casualty rates for geurilla armies, and that it's the biggest military force the world has ever known and on the home front, and that the country is so divided politically there'a a good chance any revolution would become civil war? But no, I know it's just talk.
As for politicians though, they are very public figures, with audiences and power of the type most can only dream of. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to act more professionally given the nature of their profession.
In the case of Gregg and his relatives that likely means that he doesn't expect them to shoot him. In the case of Sarah Palin that means taking into account the many times she's spoken out in favor of Second Amendment rights and about evil democrats that want to take them away. Not to mention that she has a sizable following who are much more into guns then telescopes. If she had honestly not intended a weapons motif when using crosshairs she could have used camera or telescope imagery or whatever to make that clear.
Well, I certainly do NOT expect my relatives to take pot shots at me. I also have very specific expectations that this country's political elite will not literally be shooting anyone. Clip art graphics on a poster may be in poor taste, but I assure you it is not the same thing as placing a rifle on a bench rest and "targeting" another person through the scope (presumably with the intent to do great bodily harm). Political correctness in this country is completely and totally out of control. Poor taste like Palin's poster, stupid comments ala Rush, etc. used to garner negative reactions, potentially reduce support for the offending party and then the country moved on. That was appropriate. I'm not sure what this "issue" is designed to divert our attention from, but in terms of the Newspeak that bae and that British dude spoke of, it worked perfectly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.