What chaps my hide with Republicans is that their only viable candidates for Presidents are/were a former governor who flip flops more than John Kerry was perceived to do, a pizza man who couldn't control his hormones, a former Speaker who tried to enforce a moral contract with America yet is two times divorced/three times married, a governor who knowingly executes innocent men, and a legislator who is simply bat sh!t insane and would rather have the country go bankrupt than raise it's credit limit. All the while the current President wants to put in a system that provides healthcare to every American which will help to lower medical costs across the board, presided over the deaths of three of America's top terrorist threats, instituted a plan to withdraw American troops from this needless war in the Middle East, and is trying is hardest to create jobs to get Americans back to work and get back some semblance or pride. Yet, Barack Obama is the bad guy that must be removed from office at all costs. I simply do not get it.
-
P fan #1
Joined: Oct '08
Posts: 3,255Posted 14 years ago #Hey, you're preaching to the choir with me, man!!
I partially blame the recent trend toward the "follower" mentality of people in this country, coupled with the fact that people think it's cool to have schadenfreude, sarcasm, and an overly critical mindset. Either that or they fall prey to that mindset too easily.
Before the Internet and this crazy mass-media culture was around, the average Joe would only be faced with some kooky neighbor aggressively bitching about politics or sports or whatever, and his choices were to 1) challenge the guy's aggressive posture, 2) blindly follow him because of his aggressive stance, or 3) ignore him and go back home. Not too many people want to do "1" because they either don't care enough or they don't want to rile the blowhard. And as long as there wasn't any undue pressure, no one even THOUGHT about option "2". Before the Internet, it seems like most people did "3".
Now, we have the Internet, 24-hour news, and instant news stories, and it's sorta forcing everyone into option "2" because it's HARD to challenge or ignore that negative, blowhard bullsh*t when it never stops coming at you. After a while, it wears down your defenses.
EVERYONE thinks their opinion means something now. (I mean, look at me right now: I'm partially a hypocrite by typing this paragraph, but this IS the rant thread, haha.) The loudest and the most relentless scumbags benefit from it. Gingrich? Cain? Romney? You see what they have in common? They are rich, they are loud, and they say crazy things that make it so you CAN'T tear your eyes away. And unlike the neighbor that you could go into your house to avoid, you CAN'T avoid these idiots. They buy airtime to be in your house and on your smartphone.
It has completely distorted the playing field. Now, a crazy opinion that was normally ignored (gays are indoctrinating our kids, for instance) gets just as much airtime as a sane opinion. Hell, even if you create an internet chat group like this PUTS one here, it's not safe from the "neighbors" anymore... anyone could come in here anytime with and spout crazy... just like the recent spammers on this board. You can say "go away" or "no" to the crazy or to the spam, but it'll just keep coming.
So the most gullible and confused people eventually start reasoning and justifying it all and trying to act like the point's valid. "Oh, we have freedom of speech in America, so it's okay to say that Obama is going to impose a sharia law in the country and kill all the white people." No, it's just that your crazy neighbor that shouted all the time has banded together with other shouters, and they've found out how to create a foxnews.com account, blitzkrieg your more liberal newsvine.com site, and recruit more people to their cause. IT DOESN'T MAKE THE POINT ANY MORE VALID.
Common sense should make a difference, but now that people can find other people to support any opinion they want, they don't HAVE to have common sense anymore. Some guy can think that videos of violent automobile deaths are funny now, and whereas before, common sense would've told him that it's not normal, and he might've gone to get help, now, he's probably joined a "violent crash" upload site on some back-alley server or something.
So getting back to the messed-up half of this country that think "I'll vote for anything other than an educated liberal commie socialist marxist darkie", the reason why they are downplaying his achievements, thinking that anti-intellectualism is cool, and glorifying people like Gingrich (who discussed divorce terms with his wife while she was in a hospital recovering from ovarian cancer) is because they have an audience now and they don't have to answer challenges or be ignored anymore. They've banded together in their lack of common sense. They can hide behind their user handle and say outlandish things.
So it's no longer about elevating the human race, it's about being right. And the psycho-conservatives (not ALL conservatives... fiscal conservatism has its points, even if I don't agree with them...) are now throwing the tantrum of the century JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. You have scientific proof of global warming? They don't care. You have the top economics minds telling you that universal health care will not affect the economy negatively? They don't care. You can say the sky is blue, and Perry and Bachmann and Grover Norquist will say it's green, AND PEOPLE JUST FOLLOW. The fact they can do that means we DON'T deserve the new freedom technology has given us, and our emotional and mental status has not risen globally at the same rate technology has.
Bottom line: it's more important to win now then it is to find a sustainable solution. And it's f*#$ed. And we may seriously go extinct before people start questioning themselves.
If I EVER stop questioning my opinions or use backward/circular logic to support an indefensible argument, I want the rest of you on this board to club me to death.
If you've got a brain, use it.
THAT'S my rant.
Sorry, people.
-
EP
Joined: Apr '05
Posts: 178Posted 14 years ago #Republicans are just trying to win an election. Of course they are attacking Obama. Why is this shocking to anyone? Democrats did it to Bush.
President isn't perfect either, let's get off that noise.
-
P fan #1
Joined: May '05
Posts: 1,528Posted 14 years ago #Lock N Load said:
Republicans are just trying to win an election. Of course they are attacking Obama. Why is this shocking to anyone? Democrats did it to Bush.President isn't perfect either, let's get off that noise.
That is entirely what is wrong with American politics. Winning elections. More concerned with keeping their jobs than doing what they are elected to do.
It's shocking because when you take away party affiliation, you are left with one group of people who are a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations that are concerned with their "profits" and another group that gets lambasted for wanting to help people.
I cannot grasp the logic behind Republicans wanting to give the millionaires a tax break yet when it comes to the working stiffs who pay the Payroll Tax, they want do not want to extend that tax holiday.
I know that a politician is a politician is a politician (yes, repeated three times) and none of them are to be trusted. But when you have a choice of Republicans who believe America is the playground of the rich and Democrats who believe Americans deserve a helping hand, which one do you think the majority of Americans should side with?
-
P fan #1
Joined: Oct '08
Posts: 3,255Posted 14 years ago #a) I'm not shocked by attacks. Politics has been about dirt since the Dark Ages. If I remember correctly, John Quincy Adams (or his homies) called Andrew Jackson's mom and wife whores back in the early 1800's. Ouch.
My point is that we live in an age where those "vicious rumors" can be dispelled a lot more easily (the mass-media can pretty much unearth any truths), but some groups of people have just stopped caring about the truth, and they've just bought the hype and become drones to whatever the loudest, craziest person in their group is willing to say. Case in point: Herman Cain was accused by several women of harassment (read: UNWANTED attention... not even Clintion went that far), and his poll numbers didn't take a hit. Then, we found out he was having an affair (read: WANTED attention), and now people were upset (but only kinda upset). There's something f*&$ed about that picture. And that's not even counting his grasp on the things that would matter in the office of president... and he wasn't really batting 1000 there either.
In the meantime, every rumor about Obama has turned out bullsh*t, and people keep digging like their is some huge breach of trust. He's earned some measure of trust now, but people still won't give it up.
b) I never once used the word "perfect" for the current Pres. Nor do I think he is perfect. I was upset when he extended the Bush-era tax cuts (tax me, man! I buy too much PUTS merch anyway...). I think he caves like a p***y whenever anyone hits him too hard. I appreciate his sense of compromising, but he's come THIS close to giving up his principles just to appease people.
But he's light-years beyond the current pool of candidates for the other team. Even Ron Paul, who everyone thinks it's "cool" to like right now, has a lot of ideas that are simply unsustainable. And I DO applaud the Pres's progress in the face of near-solid obstruction from the legislative branch.
c) Just to reiterate, I'm just not cool with people "just trying to win". That's like watching someone throwing 'bows and grabbing shirts in a basketball game, and then trying to say "leave him alone, ref, he was just trying to score!!". There are supposed to be rules to how this thing goes down, and if you're playing dirty and fighting dirty, and I call you out on it, the fact you were "just trying to win" doesn't excuse the fact that the sh*t was dishonorable, pure and simple.
And that's how the politics are going down today. The outlandish stuff is painted as "just trying to win", and any lash-out against those kinds of attacks is considered "un-American" because you're "suppressing freedom of speech" (no... I'm responding to it!)... and for over half the country, it's worse nowadays to be un-American than it is to be outlandish. If you've got sane, rational, SPECIFIC reasons why your candidates are better, I'd like to hear them. But right now, it's all generalities ("we'll cut spending"... oh, really... what specifically?), shadow tactics (bullsh*t voter ID laws), or straight up lies (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/).
I don't particularly like either side of the political coin or the team mentality of politics, so usually I stay out of it. I just wish people would stop selling out their intelligence because they can't get past their fears.
-
P fan #1
Joined: May '05
Posts: 1,528Posted 14 years ago #I don't agree with Obama being a "pussy" because like you said, you appreciate his sense of compromise. I'd much rather see stuff get done. Both sides need to compromise. We see the effects of not backing down as shown by the Republicans in the House. Their way or the highway. Legislation that will help the whole of American people either gets stalled indefinitely or simply does not pass. This President is held under a finer microscope and held to a far higher standard than any other President. Be it the internet/information age, his skin color, party affiliation, whatever. Politics just brings the worst out or people.
-
P fan #1
Joined: Oct '08
Posts: 3,255Posted 14 years ago #
Good point. I back down on my earlier comment.esomedina said:
I don't agree with Obama being a "pussy" because like you said, you appreciate his sense of compromise. I'd much rather see stuff get done. Both sides need to compromise. We see the effects of not backing down as shown by the Republicans in the House. Their way or the highway. Legislation that will help the whole of American people either gets stalled indefinitely or simply does not pass. This President is held under a finer microscope and held to a far higher standard than any other President. Be it the internet/information age, his skin color, party affiliation, whatever. Politics just brings the worst out or people.I guess what I mean to say is that Obama starts the conversation from a reasonable stance, and the other side usually doesn't, so when they "meet in the middle", it usually ends up not being exactly where I'd prefer it. I almost wish the Pres would start from a point equally as wacky on the other side, so then maybe they could meet in a true "center" area, but I'm not sure that it really works that way, haha.
-
mod
Joined: May '05
Posts: 1,879Posted 14 years ago #Lock N Load said:
Republicans are just trying to win an election. Of course they are attacking Obama. Why is this shocking to anyone? Democrats did it to Bush.President isn't perfect either, let's get off that noise.
Sorry but Bush deserves every ounce of sh!t talking he gets... Dude just idly sat by why our economy was in the preliminary stages of collapse. Kind of like when he just sat there reading nursery rhymes while planes were crashing into buildings. Sorry Lock but Bush was our worst president ever... Period.
-
P fan #1
Joined: May '05
Posts: 1,528Posted 14 years ago #SactownConnection said:
esomedina said:
I don't agree with Obama being a "pussy" because like you said, you appreciate his sense of compromise. I'd much rather see stuff get done. Both sides need to compromise. We see the effects of not backing down as shown by the Republicans in the House. Their way or the highway. Legislation that will help the whole of American people either gets stalled indefinitely or simply does not pass. This President is held under a finer microscope and held to a far higher standard than any other President. Be it the internet/information age, his skin color, party affiliation, whatever. Politics just brings the worst out or people.Good point. I back down on my earlier comment.
I guess what I mean to say is that Obama starts the conversation from a reasonable stance, and the other side usually doesn't, so when they "meet in the middle", it usually ends up not being exactly where I'd prefer it. I almost wish the Pres would start from a point equally as wacky on the other side, so then maybe they could meet in a true "center" area, but I'm not sure that it really works that way, haha.
Quit being a pussy! Stand by what you believe in! (i'm joking here)
What's funny is Obama tends to start off from the central positions and gets called all ,types of Socialist/Communist/Marxist/etc. Imagine if he really did start out as far left as the Tea Party starts far right. What in the world would they label him then? lol
-
EP
Joined: Apr '05
Posts: 178Posted 14 years ago #Sorry but Bush deserves every ounce of sh!t talking he gets... Dude just idly sat by why our economy was in the preliminary stages of collapse. Kind of like when he just sat there reading nursery rhymes while planes were crashing into buildings. Sorry Lock but Bush was our worst president ever... Period.
For the record, I'm not a Bush fan, I voted Obama I just fail to see what is so shocking about the other side attacking the President and trying to win. That is exactly what the Democrats did when the other party was in office, it's just you don't like it now because the 'mean' other side is doing it.
I know that a politician is a politician is a politician (yes, repeated three times) and none of them are to be trusted. But when you have a choice of Republicans who believe America is the playground of the rich and Democrats who believe Americans deserve a helping hand, which one do you think the majority of Americans should side with?
This is exactly the type of phony arguments Republicans try to make with the 'you're either with us, or for the terrorists.' The honest truth is politics is not that clear cut. It's also easy to say that it's the fault of the rich for the current state the economy is in, but when you do that, you're being intellectually lazy.
-
P fan #1
Joined: May '05
Posts: 1,528Posted 14 years ago #Lock N Load said:
I know that a politician is a politician is a politician (yes, repeated three times) and none of them are to be trusted. But when you have a choice of Republicans who believe America is the playground of the rich and Democrats who believe Americans deserve a helping hand, which one do you think the majority of Americans should side with?
This is exactly the type of phony arguments Republicans try to make with the 'you're either with us, or for the terrorists.' The honest truth is politics is not that clear cut. It's also easy to say that it's the fault of the rich for the current state the economy is in, but when you do that, you're being intellectually lazy.
I'm not making a "you're with us or against us" argument. I'm saying that when you review the stances Republicans take compared to what Democrats take, which one appeals to the majority of Americans?
I don't blame the rich for ruining the economy. We all played a role. Banks lured buyers into buying more home than they could afford. Buyers were blinded by the American Dream and didn't read the fine print. The banks lured consumers with easy credit, earning interest and fees on this credit. The consumer bought items they couldn't afford.
Shouldn't politics be clear cut? You want one thing, I want another. We're both not going to get our way, so let's meet in the middle. Done. Next issue. Maybe getting rid of these career politicians and instituting term limits would help.
-
P fan #1
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 1,659Posted 14 years ago #esomedina said:
What's funny is Obama tends to start off from the central positions and gets called all ,types of Socialist/Communist/Marxist/etc. Imagine if he really did start out as far left as the Tea Party starts far right. What in the world would they label him then? lolLMAO! Yeah, im yet to get that whole "anti-socialist" thing in America, Obama is FAR from being considered a lefty in my books yet when he tries to impliment healthcare for the benifit of many, he gets called a communist! Jeez, cant the ignorant masses see past the bullshizzle and see how a healthy poluation is able to work harder because of it? Im pretty much a marxist but even i can see the benifits of universal healthcare for the whole system.
In UK news, Chancellor George Osbourne needs to seriously consider changing the economic plan he has right now, coz PLAN A (as its aptly called) is pretty close to sending us into another recession (well, technically its another recession but seeing as weve had so little growth in the past year, i maintain weve been in a constant recession) so we need to adopt a different fiscal policy (a PLAN B or C or D) if you like. The goverment needs to leave its political ideologys at the front door and do whats best for the country!
Peace
Reply »
You must log in to post.