Another Obama untruth?
Put this one under the category of dowdification:
Another increasingly typical example of the "new kind of politics" being played by Obama. Well, the "being played" part is accurate. Also, factcheck.org has weighed in on the previous debate, concluding that both candidates were taking liberties in Philadelphia:
● Clinton said "people died" in 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. In fact, the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.● Obama said, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins." Actually, he did. He said last year, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest" because it had become "a substitute for ... true patriotism" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
● Clinton claimed that applying Social Security taxes to wages above the current cap "would impose additional taxes on ... educators ... police officers, firefighters and the like." Actually, not many of them would be affected. The cap is $102,000 a year.
● Obama denied his handwriting appeared on an old questionnaire that said he supported a ban on possessing a handgun, and he said he has never taken that position. Actually, his writing does appear on one of two versions of the questionnaire.
● Clinton said she believes "market manipulation" is partly to blame for rising fuel prices. She offered no evidence of that. Past investigations of alleged price gouging have concluded that it’s mainly market forces that push prices up.
--
"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
Okay, not to split hairs, but Obama never did say that he doesn't or won't wear pins -- he stated a particular circumstance under which he thought it was inappropriate and did not do so.
It turns out that I don't take a private helicopter to work. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't do so if the necessity presented itself, just that I don't currently because I don't view it as appropriate. Very different things.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
)Looks like ABC planted the Flag Pin question.
Strange, ugly incident. Why would ABC do this?
- reply
- quote
)Everybody remembers that one, right? Dems were complaining so loudly over the unfairness of it that I could hardly hear myself think. Not, of course.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )I have no information whatsoever on any Republican debate; my only interest in which pseudofascist got nominated was purely based on intellectual vanity. I wanted to guess right.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )You want to ask a moronic question, ask it yourself. At least have the courage of your own cupidity.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )Asking a presidential candidate a question about the American Flag is "strange" and "ugly"?
Really?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )They didn't ask him about the American Flag -- a question re his position on the flag burning amendment would've qualified as such. They asked him about wearing a fricking flag pin. A question every bit as stupid -- and poorly conceived -- as your own.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )This ain't a posting rules violation as I understand them.
But I agree w. Mac that it's unpleasant to have a question derided as 'stupid' and 'crazy' by multiple posters.
Harley you're certainly one of the most interesting/entertaining writers here. Plus your debates generate a lot of interest + maybe in part b/c they generate some heat.
But just a note that Trickster hasn't returned and Mac ain't pleased.
So thinking about the balance between provocative/civil/honest, this is a request to swing a little less hard.
- reply
- quote
| parent )And a willingness to return fire with the same or a bigger caliber round, of course.
What's amusing about your my DD link is how quickly some commenters degenerate into kindergarten "teacher, he hit me first!" quality of discourse. And FWIW, I think the idea of "troll-rating" comments ow whatever the hee they are talking about is cretinous.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )I'll enable it for your comments :)
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )I think Trickster decided to spend his limited amount of blogging time in a more pro-Clinton environment, so he went to MyDD.
Probably worth mentioning that Trickster is now of the opinion that MyDD has gone to hell because "It's no longer possible to politely express an opinion without getting troll-rated and personally insulted." AFAIK Harley doesn't even post there!
Always tricky to speculate about why people take the actions they do online. Not that I disagree with your sentiment in general, just wondering whether Harley is really all that influential =P
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
- quote
| parent )Not for lack of trying! I actually ran into Trickster over at Talkleft. He seems more comfortable in an environment where Hillary is a kind of beacon of hope that shines a competent light over our shared future. Also, in this same environment, Obama is a slick huckster incompetent who cannot be trusted with the levers of power.
In other words, some folks are more comfortable hearing their own opinions broadcast back at them. I find that boring. It's why I showed up here in the first place.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )But I can't pretend that the whole flag pin thing isn't, I dunno, stoopid. As I mentioned previously, while i wouldn't be a huge fan of it, asking someone about their position on the flag burning amendment at least has the advantage of being a moderately honest question about governance, trivial governance, but governance nonetheless. The Flag Pin crap is just that, and a now overly familiar way for some folks to play the patriotism card. Frankly? I'm sick and tired of the slur and the motives behind it. So yeah, that may have come out in my reaction. But I find the implication inherent in the formulation -- Why Aren't You Sufficiently Patriotic? -- far more unpleasant than the criticism it warrants.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )Well, just uhmmmm.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )so if you question their version of the CW on this, you're not just disagreeing with them; you are evil incarnated, and likely a bitter, gun-loving, Bible-thumping, anti-immigrant racist, too. IOW, exactly the kind of person who would ask a stupid, poorly conceived question like the one Harley objectively pointed out above.
Your penance: become an expert on constitutional law, which automatically makes you patriotic (see below).
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )That you and Mac are questioning how the lefties are characterizing the debate, rather than taking a position on the debate. The woman who asked the question has said she is bothered by candidates not wearing the flag lapel pin. "I keep looking for the lapel pin", she says. (I wonder if she's distressed about McCain's not wearing it... hmmm.)
Let's make this a little less meta... do you agree that this is an appropriate test of patriotism for candidates? If not, we're in agreement, and we don't need to linger on the fact that we feel more offended about it than you.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )And c'mon, you're too smart to play this Wingtard game, a game so embarrassing Gibson had to go out and find some poor addled woman to ask the question for him. (Nash McCabe is a pretty cool name, tho'. They did a nice 70s action show parody over at the Daily Show.)
Again. The question wasn't about the American flag. It was about a flag pin, and an assumption built for mouth breathers. That if you don't have the fracking thing pasted to your lapel on a daily basis, you're somehow less than patriotic.
And by the way, I'd suggest the Patriot Game is a little on the ugly side. Stupidity ain't cute.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )If you haven't realized that by now, I can't help.
Harley, you and the other Obamaphiles here seem to have trouble discussing any criticism of your guy without getting seriously pissed off, and often throwing nastiness and insults at any poster who tests out BO-negative. It's so easy to see that I can't believe you folks don't know you are doing it.
If that's your response to criticisms, OK, but this is a presidential election. There's always going to be heat thrown, brushbacks and balls thrown behind the batter, whether the pitcher is a Hillarite, a McCaniac or just someone like me who enjoys watching a good dog fight.
In the movies they always have a flip-up protective cover over the big red "Fire" button. What happened to yours?
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )His health care plan needs a mandate and doesn't have one, so it's neither fully fish nor fully fowl.
He is a relatively untested leader; he has some experience but nothing compared to the office he is seeking.
This country is fundamentally unprepared for an African-American President, and having one as a nominee will expose racial divisions that are best left to slowly die off.
His Iraq policy has been carefully left vague, but it implies either too swift or two slow a pullout, depending on your preference.
Obama's commitment to civil liberties would likely make Americans less safe, as it would tie the hands of authorities seeking to disrupt terror networks.
His campaign is in some ways profoundly cynical -- he clearly has substance, as shown on his website, but he has been very careful to keep it from infecting his campaign speech.
Obama's electoral career thus far has been comprised of successes against low-difficulty targets and failures against high-difficulty targets. It's possible he has not been truly tested against the kind of adversity he would face both in the general and in the office.
At heart, Obama is an upper-middle-class success story. He will have tremendous difficulty relating to people of lesser talent who work very hard for relatively little success. This can translate both into policy troubles and difficulty acting as a head of state.
Obama's Israel policy is not nearly hard enough on Israeli settlements, the proximate cause of the ongoing conflict.
Obama has nibbled around the edges of the horror which is US antidrug policy, but given his usage, he has been remarkably hypocritical in not making it more of an issue.
These I see as meaningful criticisms, many of which I view as valid and some I view as wrong but having support.
Discussions of flag pins, dog-whistle pastor quotations, and semantic games with position papers which may or may not have even been seen by the candidate (or seen past the 1st page) are not meaningful.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )"an upper-middle-class success story", at the very least, wouldn't you say?
There is a tremendous amount of education needed. Policies cannot very well be framed in a backyard.
- reply
- quote
| parent )He is, in fact, a working-class success story; he was raised in a very different sort of household from Obama's.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )category.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )I'm not disagreeing that it is not possible for the working class to penetrate hierarchies. In fact, one of the reasons why you in the USA are so much more successful than us over here is that you do allow a meritocratic penetration of talented people from the working classes into the ruling classes. Whereas we over here have historically barred them from doing so on account of castes etc in our traditional societies (Islamic societies here allow more penetration).
However, I suspect that part of the unwritten deal in penetrating the upper classes might be acceptance of the status quo - i.e. we want your brains or technical ability, but you have to buy into our class's ideology. Pure hunch on my part, of course, but it would go some way into explaining the popularity of the Iraq war.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Though I do think that you only have to mouth the platitudes for the very beginning of your career. The problem comes when folks don't realize they've paid their dues and now have agency in their own rights.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )But for me? The flag pin stuff is not criticism. (What's the critique?) This is juvenilia for mouth breathers. That's something quite different.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )Geddit? Bait - chum? Whee.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )Okay, consider me disarmed. I think, more than anything else, I need this rather unfortunate part of the process to be over. Unfortunately, thanks to either a slow-to-impact Bittergate, or his poor debate performance (and it was very poor), or a combination of both, the Sainted One's national Gallup numbers have dipped and dived. The Pantsuit Nixon now enjoys a one point lead. And sure, polls are not necessarily to be trusted, but in this case? That momentum, or the appearance of it, only adds more gasoline to the Clinton Engine of Total Destruction. Which is where we're headed if they don't wrap it all up by June 1.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )Sad thing is, in private she'd glow with pleasure at the name and particularly, the implications w/r/t power.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )Pantsuit Nixon. Heh.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )That's really all I am willing to say right now.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )Lemme guess... You're gonna vote McCain?
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )-nt-
- reply
- quote
| parent )-
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )ask in all innocence (of course, no one's questioning anyone's patriotism) "why dost thou shun the lapel pin of righteousness?" An angelic back-lighting frames them nicely while they ask this perfectly honest, and deeply meaningful question... one hand on the bible, another diddling the trigger of an imaginary heirloom Remington.
Why doesn't McCain wear a flag pin? Why doesn't McCain's wife release her tax records?
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )Why should I care if a politician wears a silly pen all the time.. The flag itself is not silly but the gotcha faux patriot/ anti-patriot meme is beneath any poster here IMHO...
In my view it is anti-American to question any ones patriotism. It strikes as modern day McCarthyism IMHO.. The flag pen is cheap and easy patriotism.. Their is nothing wrong with it except again it is to easy almost demeaning.. If you want to fly the flag and under lit it or take it down everyday or put up a yellow Ribbon in front of your house or organize fundraisers for families of servicemen etc.
Is very different than simple car decals or Lapel pins.. Patriotism should not be easy it should take effort.
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )What the heck are you reading or responding to?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )...and your crazy implication that somehow wearing a flag pin makes one patriotic.
Remember, Obama is an expert in United States Constitutional law. You know, he teaches it without wearing a flag pin. I find that patriotic. Sorry you don't see it that way.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
- quote
| parent )This was Macallan's question to Hank: Asking a presidential candidate a question about the American Flag is "strange" and "ugly"? Really? Sounds to me like Macallan was questioning Hank's description of a question.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )This is the problem. There are a number of possible questions about the flag, but this ain't one of them.
This is a question about adhering to the kind of symbolism that fascists use.
I've actually lived in a country where people could lose a job or even end up detained for not wearing a flag pin, or an arm-band, or whatever. It is a part and parcel of a mentality that hates freedom and demands conformance and unquestioning obedience. Pins and similar symbols are frequent features of dictatorships. They at once serve to force obedience, for who would risk looking like a traitor, while providing cover for those scoundrels who are busy robbing the country blind. The real traitors.
Think about it. If you were a traitor, the first thing you would do is wear the best flag pin you could find.
Obama spent a part of his childhood in Indonesia, under dictatorship. He understands this; he grew up with it.
--Holographic Foam Cosmology. Improved! With bigger bubbles!
- reply
- quote
| parent )not wearing a flag pin? No one's done that to me; I think your examples are hyperbole. But it's well-put, so how come Obama didn't say the same thing?
(And the "fascist" tag has become so ubiquitous here that I'm developing a parallel to Godwin's Law to shorthand it.)
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )...if I said that I thought Obama was anything better than a lackluster debater. He is not fast with words in that context. My guess is that if he spoke quickly he would sound too Harvardy, and I'm sure he has been advised and trained to death to avoid anything too complex.
As for threats, they are implied. That is the whole point of this sort of thing. There is rarely an explicit threat. It's insidious precisely because the leadership cues that people should wear whatever it is, and all of the sudden everybody is doing it. If you don't, you stick out like a sore thumb. Non-compliance is taken as a sign of disloyalty. A boss might wonder if you forgot your pin, a colleague may insist that you really ought to wear it. A domestic spy will write your name down and look for other evidence of disobedience.
What you need to understand about authoritarian systems is that a great deal of their psychological effect is that nobody is quite sure just what can get them into trouble. So they become paranoid and police themselves while becoming suspicious of associating with anybody else who is a little different; who won't wear the pin for example.
A country of free individuals would simply rebel against a suddenly authoritarian government. If you want to get there you gradually erode freedom with illegal wiretaps or unaccountable no-fly lists, or you install voting systems that cannot be audited. If people complain, out come the scoundrel's first weapon of choice: overt and faux patriotism.
Obama should sit down and figure out a way of conveying this concept in a manner similar to what he did with his race speech. It is no wonder he could not put together a good reply in a few seconds; there are too many ways for it to come out in such a way that a soundbite could kill him.
Goodwin's law simply fails to be useful here. Obama did live under a dictatorship, and that is relevant.
--Holographic Foam Cosmology. Improved! With bigger bubbles!
- reply
- quote
| parent )I feel zero pressure to wear a flag pin, put a ribbon on my car or take mine off, or anything else of that nature. But I'm not trying to get elected to anything. Obama is, so he has to trim his sails according to what will gain him more votes than it he will lose. So he reacts, responds and tries to calibrate and qualify his positions so that conservatives hear "I support gun rights" while liberals hear "but state and local officials can legislate them away."
Nothing unique here; every pol running for any office of significance has to convince a majority that he/she's their guy, which means a certain flexibility when it comes to everything, including core values. The problem as I see it is that his supporters have convinced themselves that Obama is somehow different, that he's above the petty pandering for votes that HRC launches into with such zeal. Maybe they miss that he came from an easy Congressional win in a strongly Dem district, and had no prayer of being elected President unless he moved significantly towards the middle. Not an easy thing to do when you're new at compromising.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )But it has features of one it didn't use to. Try making a fuss at the airport if the TSA treats you badly and see what happens. I'd rather jump the gun than risk further creep in that creepy direction.
By the way, Hillary isn't exactly tested herself, despite what she claims. She won in New York against a weak candidate and then a nobody. The last time around she won by a large margin yet managed to get, IIRC, about 150,000 fewer votes than Spitzer.
Compromising also has its drawbacks. Bill did it so much that one usual GOP attack point was that he didn't stand for anything.
--Holographic Foam Cosmology. Improved! With bigger bubbles!
- reply
- quote
| parent )...and his alleged implication. As for ABC, they can ask what they want and Obama's followers can voice their displeasure all they want. And they have.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )...has nothing to do with what happened.
Obama was not asked about the American flag. Had he been asked about the American flag, Mac's question would be relevant enough to respond to.
--Holographic Foam Cosmology. Improved! With bigger bubbles!
- reply
- quote
| parent )if he's such an expert on constitutional law? The DC gun ban case pending before the USSC is the most important one on the subject since the 1930's. Could it be the simple ignorance of the briefs Obama claimed during the debate, or is it because it's a hot button with voters, who believe 2 to 1 that the Constitution guarantees gun ownership? Do you award fractional patriotism points to pols who are experts only in the parts of the Constitution that won't affect their chances at winning? Or to those who give a "yes-no-maybe so" answer to a debate question on the Second Amendment?
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )That's a significant step for liberals =)
(More here, with a link to additional background on the case.)
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
- quote
| parent )Jan Crawford Greenburg:
"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )Here's the entire discussion during the debate:
Nothing new there; in fact, many gun owners likely would agree with much of this, while challenging the assertion that registration and/or waiting periods have been proven to make a significant dent in gun crime. But the key issue (as shown by oral argument before the USSC) is whether cities can "stop that kind of killing" via a complete handgun ban, and that's what Obama punted on.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )To know more about who he is, and that's fair enough.
But as President he won't have much to do with this... it's between DC and the courts. And you know, the principle he draws out is a conservative one, federalism -- and a valid one. I live in Manhattan and don't want Montana gun control laws here, nor would I want to impose Manhattan laws on Montana.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )more red-staters shooting each other.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )Pick any major metro area with a high level of fun crime3 and you almost alwasy will find the mayor is a Democrat. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me. Maybe the degree to which a gun ban is needed in a particular city is directly related to how many Dem voters live there. Silly, but not any more so than your comment.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )on guns.
I'm advocating the deaths of red-staters.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )-
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )Yep. I'm a psychotic who is advocating the deaths of everyone in a red state.
You can tell this is true because you're reading it on the internet.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )And I'm reading you, not "it", on the internet.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )Now we need to abuse punctuation in order to connote irony?
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )It turns out Jonathan Swift didn't really want to eat Irish babies. HTH. HAND.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )But Swift didn't title the tract in question "74th in an endless series: Yet Another Way That We Should Abuse Irish Babies", either. The sad thing about the "red state" comment is that it fits into the list of comments from the source without causing a ripple.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )You're obviously not paying attention.
Check out alt.binaries.fanfic.buffy-redstate-holocaust some time to read my 78th masterwork.
Need a smiley to figure it out? Here's one: :) Cut and paste.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )So what's your point?
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )Swift had a day-glo orange sticker he affixed to all of his writings that read 'SATIRE.'
Swift's contemporaries would read his works, and nod to each other. "Satire." they would say, nodding in agreement... "Noted."
This is a little known fact, and if you were to stumble upon one in a garage sale, you could make pretty penny. Again, this is proven to be true because you are reading it on the internet.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )oops
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )We want to take their guns! And their Bibles. I guess it can be from their cold, dead, hands though.
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .that the legally permitted targets tend to vote blue when they bother to do so.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent ).
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
- quote
| parent )and it's not as "red" as you think.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )...
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )That's news to me, since I was responding in the context of Pranky's Michael Moore-esque comment that he had no problem with red staters shooting each other. I, of course, was talking about shooting burglars and armed robbers, who are more likely than not to vote Democratic when they haven't blessedly been prevented from doing so due to being convicted of felonies or by being involuntarily converted to fertilizer.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )Where do you get this information? Is it a racial thing? (i.e. there are more African-Americans convicted of violent crimes, and African-Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic.) Or a class and/or education thing? And why do you assume that the folks committing violent crimes are not a self-selected minority of the groups which trend Democratic?
I mean, pursuing a life of crime is profoundly stupid in many ways; I could, for example, argue (with no increase in offensiveness) that this would predispose those so engaged to vote either Republican or Green.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .but you can find someone else to play the "brown people" game with. Googling "felons voting party" should be enough to convince anyone reasonable that:
--felons would, given the ability, vote in significantly greater numbers for Democrats than Republicans, and;
--both Democratic and Republican elected officials seem to believe that this is so and are behaving accordingly.
Make of it what you will.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )Well, felons do tend to be less educated, so let's look at those without HS education and those with HS but no college educations:
source:
No HS: Bush 49, Kerry 50
HS: Bush 52, Kerry 47
That's pretty much a wash, within margins of error.
Okay, how about gender -- more men are felons:
Male: Bush 55, Kerry 44
Female: Bush 48, Kerry 51
That's a strong pro-Bush association.
Okay, on to class. Violent felons do tend to be drawn from the poorest reaches of our society:
Income:
Less than 50k: Bush 45, Kerry 55
More than 50k: Bush 56, Kerry 43
That's a hit, almost as big as the gender thing. On to race; African-Americans are massively disproportionately represented in our felon population:
White: Bush 58, Kerry 41
African-American: Bush 11, Kerry 88.
So, to sum up: Gender and income roughly cancel one another out in terms of proclivity to vote Democratic or Republican. The big determinant is race. Which is to say that, yes, this is about the brown people.
Taking as given, of course, the author's assumption that felons vote in roughly the same proportions as the general population from which they are drawn.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )M Scott was referring to Bad Guys!!!, not anyone in the real actual universe we call home. Bad Guys!!! all deserve to be shot by guns!!! Pew pew pew!
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .when you were gleefully talking about the concept of red state citizens shooting each other, who did you have in mind again? Since no one else seems to be curious, I'll ask.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )...for me to read the non-response as a concession that you were discussing race?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )With your comments above, you've established that:
--even using your assumptions, felons are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican as a group (proving my point), and;
--admitted that your veiled accusations of racism are contingent on the conceit that felons would have the same voting patterns as the racial groups they came from (never mind that criminals have very good reasons to vote against Republican standard policy positions such as harsher sentencing and increased prison spending).
As I said above, you can play your hysterical "brown person" games without me.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )If you aren't contending that felons vote in accordance with the populations from which they are drawn, the posts above are merely making assertions with neither empirical support nor interest in any support which may exist
I'm glad we got that cleared up, I guess.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )referring to red state citizens shooting each other so they'd all die.
It was a tasteless joke, but I don't really want anyone to die. I was gleeful, that's for sure. I'm still full of glee.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )Kid of like me saying they should lift the gun ban in DC so that all of the Dems living there can shoot each other before the election. Funny and ironic, huh?
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .when someone here comes up with a "conservatives are evil/should die" riff, we should assume that they're engaging in satire? It certainly isn't justified by the case histories involved.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )Because it's not like the recent rash of reopened gulags, detention without charges, warrantless surveillance, liberal politicians on the no-fly list, concentration camps, or repeated death threats against Presidential candidates came from our end.
I mean, yeah, McCain apparently gets death threats too. From the right.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...to be found here:
Since 88 percent of felons are male, 59% of convicted felons are white, and 38% of convicted felons are African-American, based on the above, we'd expect to roughly see:
White felons: we expect a 10% pro-Repub bias due to gender and a 10% pro-Repub bias due to race. So roughly 60-40 pro-Repub.
African-American felons: The African-American effect would obviously dominate, so 85-15 pro-Repub bias there.
That gives us a (.9 * .6 * .2) = .1 expected pro-Repub bias from the white felons, and a (.9 * .4 * .8) = .3 expected pro-Repub bias from the African-American felons. (All numbers expressed as proportions of the overall felon population.)
Our BotE calculations thus predict about a 60-40 pro-Dem split among felons reenfranchised, almost exclusively due to race.
Again, assuming that: 1) White and African-American reenfranchised ex-cons vote in the same proportions, and 2) Felons vote in roughly the same proportions as the populations from which they are drawn.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )it's legally OK to shoot felons?
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .burglarizing your home, or he tries to rob you and you're faster with your gun, yes. In other cases of self-defense, yes. Otherwise, no--unless it's a case of a police officer using justifiable force, or capital punishment administered according to the demands of the law.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )there's no information to back it up. How long have you been here?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )the late Gary Gygax didn't include Democrats in the Monster Manual.
--Mr. McBarkersons is on Your Side:
- reply
- quote
| parent )I wish it had remained cryptic.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent ).
- reply
- quote
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )thay are strange and ugly? What do you expect to see when you strip morality and civility from capitalism?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )What do you expect? Politicians lie, distort, exaggerate, misrepresent, mischaracterize and muddle. Is that news?
The votes are as good as cast.
We'll see which overpromising obfuscater wins.
- reply
- quote
)No one here actually gives a damn whether Obama was distorting anything, or how much. So you're preaching to the choir, whether you realize it or not.
It's interesting how the phrase "the lesser evil" encapsulates coalition politics so well. The nature of the beast is that most voters, in most elections, will be voting against something much more than they are voting for anything.
Oh, "protest vote", too. That's a good phrase; it means that "your" guy is so awful that you can't even do the coalition thing that year. Who are protest voters protesting? Their own side, of course.
So much of politics is so obvious. Like, why do elections focus on stupid things? Because, for the most part, the people who don't have strong political opinions (the "persuadables") are either stupid, or ignorant, or both. The educated wonks who care deeply about policies and principles have all made their minds up already.
Not to throw water on BD's diary or anything. It's a pretty good specimen of its type.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I just felt inclined to point out the obvious.
:)
- reply
- quote
| parent )and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time,” McCain said. “But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges."
Obama's point couldn't be clearer: why would anyone make this argument that there's been "great progress"? What is progress supposed to be, if it doesn't make a damn bit of difference for 95% of all Americans? Sure the economy has expanded under Bush, but who owns that wealth? Who benefits from it? Where does the money go? The only people who have made "progress" are the very richest of the rich, and by and large their gain has been the loss of most of the rest of us, and in a democratic society that is no kind of progress at all. Obama fires back:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
)...without mischaracterizing McCain's, but he didn't. And besides, Obama is wrong about incomes in America. BTW, Engram is a Democrat, albeit not a liberal one.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )I've almost gotten sick of pointing out how this misleading bit of legerdemain is done. Don't look at real income, or even real after-tax income. Instead, look at "comprehensive" income... which includes health care insurance, paid by the employer. The worker doesn't actually see any of this money, but Republicans are glad to count their inability and/or unwillingness to control health care expenses as a grand victory. Hurray!
In fact, Obama is 100% correct. The median income has fallen since 2000, the first time that has happened over the length of an expansion. And even after-tax income has fallen.
Look at the footnotes here, if you have any doubts.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )So compensation in the form of cash money and other sources isn't real income? At best, Obama's contention is selective.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )And compensation in the form of health insurance premiums has declined steeply in value since 2000.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )If the cost of what you receive in health care benefits increases, but the value to you does not, you are not better off. Health care premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, and Medicare expenses have risen too. I would guess that they are responsible for the entirety in the rise of so-called "comprehensive" income. And contrary to Engram's simply false assertion, pre- and after-tax has little to do with it. (The difference in effective tax rates between 2000 and 2005 is just 0.2% for the middle quintile.)
If anyone is being selective it's you and Engram.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
Income is virtually flat 2000-2005 except in the top 2 quintiles. Both pretax and after-tax income decline for the bottom quintile. Pretax declines for quintile 2.
Tax Policy Org, meanwhile, makes absolutely no reference to the skyrocketing costs of health care, prescription drugs, and gasoline.
Obama's right about incomes. He's right that McCain's off his rocker to speak of "progress" in this economy. Rich people getting richer off everyone else's loss isn't progress in a democracy, sorry.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )The devil is in the footnotes. They actually *count* the skyrocketing health care premiums payed by employers as income. Nice trick, that.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )people.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )If you're going to use household data, you also have to cross correlate demographic changes. IOW, if a person leaves his parent's house and gets his own apartment, that subset of 1 splits into a new subset of 2 and has a serious drop in "average household income", even if both households are making substantially more. Or conversely, if some hot shot web geek making boatloads in '99 moves back in with his parents after the dot.com crash and he gets layed off, average household income goes down in that subset even though his parents are making the same or more. If he then gets a job delivering pizzas, avg. household income goes up, even though his life pretty much sucks.
When demographic changes nationwide are cross-correlated (a steady increase in single households over the last decade IIRC), I think you might find that the Senator's argument is a bit of statistically trickery.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )is that like being put out to stud?
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )The reliable, vanilla data shows a fall in average income. As I've said above, it's the people that tell you incomes are going up that use the statistical trickery.
Actually, the story is worse than the numbers show for (at least) two reasons. Median wage is a better measure, since the over-performance of the super-rich does not affect the average guy, even though it's counted in the mean. And two, demographic factors. The population is getting older, and as you get older you usually start earning more. When you compare the wages of today's workers of a defined age with the wages of their counterparts years ago, we have gone backwards, especially if you're a man.
Now to be fair, much of this has been going on since the 60s and is due to social factors that are beyond any administration's control -- but a big reason why income has gone down since 2000 is because health care has eaten up all the employee's portion of economic growth. The Republicans have made no serious effort to address this.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )that if real after tax income rose 1% over 5 years, that's technically growth.
I have a hard time understanding how you can say that when the bottom quintile saw incomes drop by 1% in real terms over the 5 year period, the second quintile only saw a 2.8% growth and the third quintile had a 5.6% growth that Obama is wrong when he says that most people had flat or declining income. 4% over 5 years is flat for all intents and purposes.
Meanwhile in the same period the top 1% had a 16% increase after tax income.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )