Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Republicans are sore losers. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/153857-republicans-sore-losers.html)

mixedmedia 03-29-2010 10:13 AM

Obama blinders :lol:

pan, I don't rightly see how you can write that last post and accuse anyone of wearing 'blinders'...the irony tastes very, very strong at this point

Remind me again just what Obama is 'doing' and how is it giving him unchecked 'power' in the manner of the neo-liberals of the last administration. I really need for you to clear this up for me, thanks.

I agree with ratbastid's assessment, as well.

dc_dux 03-29-2010 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2772913)
you beat me to it. I guess people forgot about the assault weapons ban.

Clinton's welfare reform certainly was moderate to conservative, as was his trade policies and financial regulatory reform.

And I too have to chuckle at pan @ Obama blinders given the misrepresentation of the facts in this health care discussion alone.

ratbastid 03-29-2010 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2772879)
yet find no faults with what Obama is doing.

To be crystal clear: the above category doesn't include me. I'd be surprised if you could find one person on TFP who had zero policy differences with Obama.

One MAJOR approach the right has taken is to put "Obama is perfect" in the mouths of anyone who's not on the right. Ever since the primary, when they started saying he was "your messiah". It's manipulative bullshit, pan. Don't get sucked into it.

EDIT: BTW, pan, when I say "the right", I'm clear I'm not talking about you. You're your own critter. For a while you looked to me like a good liberal but I know better than to think that now. ;)

dippin 03-29-2010 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2772905)
How was Clinton any of those things? Why, because he didn't change them enough? He was left-centrist and was willing to listen to the other side, but he was liberal in many aspects also.

I found Clinton socially liberal and to a degree the best president in my lifetime. The ONLY problem with Clinton was the GOP did all they could to destroy him and made it impossible for him to get anything done. But as a LEADER he was damned good, he inspired and kept a positive tone in most of his time. He could have gone back and tried to attack the GOP (Gingrich was having his own affairs) but he didn't. He did what he could and he IMHO did the best job possible.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------



I disagree. It is only obvious to those with Obama blinders on. I stand by my statement that W was the first true Barrack Room Emporer and Obama is taking it further.

You can't have a nation going one way and slam on the brakes and go in a completely different direction and expect the masses to be ok with that. It just doesn't happen. Takes time and compromise and I don't see that from Obama.

In my mind he is every bit as bad if not worse than W. He just is doing it in a different way, but the results are the same.

For someone who has been proven wrong without ever acknowledging it so many times, it is certainly funny to see you claim anyone has blinders on. Especially when at one time or another over these past 2 months you've either claimed that Obama was far left AND the same thing as Bush.

But hey, if that is the case, please point to the members here who apparently have those blinders on. Please cite everyone who hasn't criticized Obama recently.

pan6467 03-29-2010 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2772994)
To be crystal clear: the above category doesn't include me. I'd be surprised if you could find one person on TFP who had zero policy differences with Obama.

One MAJOR approach the right has taken is to put "Obama is perfect" in the mouths of anyone who's not on the right. Ever since the primary, when they started saying he was "your messiah". It's manipulative bullshit, pan. Don't get sucked into it.

Ah, but people here did the exact same thing to Bush followers. I was one and at the time I did so won some acclaim from people here who now can't stand my posts and do all they can to make sure they point out some of my foolhardiness.

Quote:

EDIT: BTW, pan, when I say "the right", I'm clear I'm not talking about you. You're your own critter. For a while you looked to me like a good liberal but I know better than to think that now. ;)
There is a difference between a "liberal" of the 80's and Clinton era and now. Hell, Clinton here has been called a full moderate. LOL

And I have said before on numerous occasions and while somethings have been pointed out this for whatever reason doesn't. I am my own critter (as you point out), I have my own warped, foolhardy, weird, wild extremist views. (I am neither left nor right in my views, I consider myself socially liberal, fiscally conservative with a sense of patriotism and belief the US needs to work on itself and fix itself first, then help the rest of the world.)

Beyond that, there are things where I can bring out truly good points, I can bring out points that will be heated on one side or the other... or I can just fuck with people so I don't get loopholed into any one belief.

My goal is to find people that freely think for themselves and stop using "talking" points or seemingly post whatever to try to "show their intelligence and win some form of praise from whichever "clique" they are trying to impress here. If I found someone that truly didn't give a fuck how they appeared to others here and truly spoke their own beliefs (no talking points, no BS polls or data that can be swayed because both sides manipulate facts to benefit themselves), I would probably have a great talk and honest debate with. And probably have a good friend in the end.

But in the end I am someone who loves my country and believes it can do better. However, I firmly believe we are in the midst of the Barrack Room Emperors" W being the first Obama being the second. And yes, to me they are one in the same. They may have different items that they push and sell to different groups, but in the end Iraq, Afghanistan, Oil, minimum wage, programs to help people advance, the infrastructure, Federal Reserve, deficits and so on remain relatively unchanged. Just a different wrapping paper and sales technique.

Just MY opinion. I'm sure people here will jump all over it to prove me wrong, just as W people did the same thing 6 years ago.

Anyway, people will think what they want. Truth is I don't care, I will be who I am, warped as I am.

dksuddeth 03-30-2010 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2772859)
To be entirely fair, dk, I know you were as outraged about some of Bush's atrocities as anyone. The above isn't specifically addressed at you.

:thumbsup:

Derwood 03-30-2010 05:51 AM

can we stop with the "b-b-but you did it to Bush!" retort? It doesn't justify any current behavior

The_Dunedan 03-30-2010 06:02 AM

Tellya what; we'll stop with "You did it to Bush!" when y'all stop with "It's all Bush's fault!" and "But Bush did it too!"

Deal?

roachboy 03-30-2010 07:10 AM

so wait...what you want is for those of us who opposed the bush administration to stop mentioning his actual record and in exchange you will stop making shit up about obama?

what kind of trade is that?

FoolThemAll 03-30-2010 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2773215)
so wait...what you want is for those of us who opposed the bush administration to stop mentioning his actual record and in exchange you will stop making shit up about obama?

what kind of trade is that?

Huh. How'd you manage to misread a two-sentence post that badly?

roachboy 03-30-2010 08:21 AM

that would be correct. my post was two sentences. but i think you screwed up with your pronoun usage. pity, as it makes your post confusing, lending an implication that you could theoretically be trying to address me.

Derwood 03-30-2010 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2773175)
Tellya what; we'll stop with "You did it to Bush!" when y'all stop with "It's all Bush's fault!" and "But Bush did it too!"

Deal?

no deal. I will continue pointing out those instances that it WAS Bush's fault.

I don't think I've ever used the "Bush did it too" excuse, but feel free to prove me wrong

FoolThemAll 03-30-2010 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2773234)
that would be correct. my post was two sentences. but i think you screwed up with your pronoun usage. pity, as it makes your post confusing, lending an implication that you could theoretically be trying to address me.

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a completely understandable mistake. 'Bush' looks just like 'Obama', it's really easy to confuse the two names.

But just for fun, go back to Dunedan's post and count all the instances of 'Obama'. I promise you won't have to use your toes.

roachboy 03-30-2010 08:43 AM

so....context is not important to you when you interpret a statement?
just wondering.

or are you misconstruing the pronoun "you" in the two sentences i wrote as a mode of addressing the dunedan directly?
that would be wrong.
that's an example of why looking to context helps.

ratbastid 03-30-2010 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2773175)
Tellya what; we'll stop with "You did it to Bush!" when y'all stop with "It's all Bush's fault!" and "But Bush did it too!"

Deal?

This is what I meant when I said I'm not all that interested in consistency. Not given the gaping chest-wound Bush left. Not given the blind eye turned on those who opposed him and the free pass and bullhorn given those who are blustering against Obama.

Here's one place you can see the asymmetry of this thing: People who protested Bush's actions largely were protesting Bush's actions. Yes some names got called, but whatever conclusion people came to about Bush's intellectual capacity were brought about by observation of his policies and decisions.

By contrast, these tea party people are against Obama personally. They don't know enough about any policy (for instance the actual health care legislation) to formulate an argument against the policy itself. They have to change its name to "Obamacare" as a signal to fellow anti-Obamites that it's a Bad Thing, because Obama's a Bad Man. And then their reasoned, specific response to the legislation is "It's a gummint takeover!".

We looked at what Bush did and called him an idiot. People call Obama a communist muslim nazi, and then are against anything he does. To treat the two like they're ANYTHING like the same is just ridiculous.

And look, the things Obama has done that Bush did too (ie. extending USA Patriot, wiretapping, etc), I'm as against those when Obama did them as I was when Bush was doing them. I don't give Obama any passes on those things. I didn't expect anything different--he told us during the campaign he would be doing that. So it doesn't surprise me or particularly disappoint me, but I do disapprove.

The_Dunedan 03-30-2010 09:39 AM

Quote:

so wait...what you want is for those of us who opposed the bush administration to stop mentioning his actual record and in exchange you will stop making shit up about obama?
No, what I want is for sauce to be applied to both rabid goose and distempered gander equally.

Quote:

Huh. How'd you manage to misread a two-sentence post that badly?
It's not so much a misreading as a deliberate misrepresentation. A classic tactic of many collectivists is to force an incorrect definition, position, or context into/onto someone and then force them to defend it, while denying that the person's -actual- definition, position, or context is relevant, cogent, coherent, or even extant. It's a refined version of "So Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?" and is especially popular among collectivist brainwashers with captive audiences dependant upon them and their whims for grades, jobs, and promotions. You run into this kind of thing most predictably from the Left at Universities, and the Right in the military and in business.

Quote:

I don't think I've ever used the "Bush did it too" excuse, but feel free to prove me wrong
I don't know if you have/did or not, and frankly couldn't be paid to care. Since collectivists are so comfortable dealing with, judging, and assigning blame to people based upon group membership rather than actual actions taken or words uttered, I decided to speak your language. I see this hasn't made it any easier for me to be understood. Pity.

Quote:

or are you misconstruing the pronoun "you" in the two sentences i wrote as a mode of addressing the dunedan directly?
Since you replied directly to my post (both sequentially and thematically), used the singular personal pronoun "you" without any collective modifier (y'all) or indicator of collectivity (you all, you guys, you lot, etc), yes. As you say, context.

Part of the contextual/metacultural problem is also the fact that, as a collectivist, you personally seem to view a group of individuals as an individual and feel comfortable addressing and dealing with them as such. I as an individualist do not. This has a linguistic reflection.

Quote:

They have to change its name to "Obamacare" as a signal to fellow anti-Obamites that it's a Bad Thing, because Obama's a Bad Man.
As opposed to "bushco," "bushworld," and "bushitler," which I saw bandied freely here and even used myself on occaision?

Quote:

People call Obama a communist muslim nazi, and then are against anything he does.
Yes, and people called Bush a faschist Christian-reconstructionist chimpanzee, and were against anything he did.

Pardon me if I cannot see the difference between a kick in the teeth and a punch in the balls. Both hurt a lot, neither will improve my luck with the ladies, and neither were probably my idea.

dippin 03-30-2010 09:59 AM

It's funny when someone accuses someone else of being a "collectivist" while only describing society in collective terms.

And whatever Bush and Obama have been called, to equate the two is to engage in a game of false equivalency.

Whatever you think Obama has done so far, it does not compare to starting a war under false pretenses. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it is better to leave Iraq straight away or gradually, but there is no disagreement that the war was started under false pretenses and that over a hundred thousand people lost their lives as a result.

Likewise, it is insane to compare "accusing" Obama of being a secret muslim bent on destroying the country to the statement that Bush was a born again Christian who let that influence his agenda, and who based a lot of his political career on the support of other born again Christians.

ratbastid 03-30-2010 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2773266)
Yes, and people called Bush a faschist Christian-reconstructionist chimpanzee, and were against anything he did.

You've missed my point entirely. I'm saying there's no goose and gander. There's goose and tomahawk missile. There's no kick in the teeth vs punch in the balls. It's kick in the teeth vs knife through the heart.

I reject entirely that there's ANY equivalency between what's being said about Obama and what was said about Bush, and I assert that an attempt to create an equivalency both minimizes the disaster Bush was, and rationalizes away the damage these sore losing tea partiers are doing.

pan6467 03-30-2010 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2773174)
can we stop with the "b-b-but you did it to Bush!" retort? It doesn't justify any current behavior

No, it doesn't but I truly get sick of people who act as if it is the lowest of lows to attack Obama when they would say ANYTHING they wanted about Bush.

To sit there and yell about how someone is attacking Obama, the SAME way Bush was attacked (you can find polls and stats that support just about anything on the net) is hypocritical. And to say "stop with the you did it to Bush".... well stop crying over attacks to Obama. Isn't that what you told W people.

Me, I like to just bitch about both because if I were king.......

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2773266)
No, what I want is for sauce to be applied to both rabid goose and distempered gander equally.



It's not so much a misreading as a deliberate misrepresentation. A classic tactic of many collectivists is to force an incorrect definition, position, or context into/onto someone and then force them to defend it, while denying that the person's -actual- definition, position, or context is relevant, cogent, coherent, or even extant. It's a refined version of "So Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?" and is especially popular among collectivist brainwashers with captive audiences dependant upon them and their whims for grades, jobs, and promotions. You run into this kind of thing most predictably from the Left at Universities, and the Right in the military and in business.



I don't know if you have/did or not, and frankly couldn't be paid to care. Since collectivists are so comfortable dealing with, judging, and assigning blame to people based upon group membership rather than actual actions taken or words uttered, I decided to speak your language. I see this hasn't made it any easier for me to be understood. Pity.



Since you replied directly to my post (both sequentially and thematically), used the singular personal pronoun "you" without any collective modifier (y'all) or indicator of collectivity (you all, you guys, you lot, etc), yes. As you say, context.

Part of the contextual/metacultural problem is also the fact that, as a collectivist, you personally seem to view a group of individuals as an individual and feel comfortable addressing and dealing with them as such. I as an individualist do not. This has a linguistic reflection.



As opposed to "bushco," "bushworld," and "bushitler," which I saw bandied freely here and even used myself on occaision?



Yes, and people called Bush a faschist Christian-reconstructionist chimpanzee, and were against anything he did.

Pardon me if I cannot see the difference between a kick in the teeth and a punch in the balls. Both hurt a lot, neither will improve my luck with the ladies, and neither were probably my idea.

I just like this post, someone who I can relate to in some ways....lol scary.

FoolThemAll 03-30-2010 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2773241)
so....context

is not on your side here either.

Just read more carefully next time and take more care not to misrepresent the words of others. A moderator, of all people, should be practiced in this.

roachboy 03-30-2010 10:50 AM

o please. don't be absurd. you're making a ridiculous point based on your confusion over a pronoun (whether it was used in a singular or plural sense) in the context of a thread that had devolved onto a series of assertions of a false equivalence from some of the more conservative folk who have participated. the restatement i made of the dunedan's point simply pushed it into the overall train of argument, such as it is, from the more conservative posters. in doing that, all i did was restate the false equivalence that the dunedan's post was about.

there is no particular logic problem, nor is there are reading problem.
it is not a great concern to me whether you like the argument or not, fool them all. it really isn't.

it is, however, a bit of a concern that you try to pull some cheap move* regarding the fact that i am a mod.
when i act in moderator-mode, you will know.
otherwise i participate in threads like any other member.

if you have a problem with that, take it up with me or another staff person by pm.

* later: i removed an intensifier. it wasn't necessary.

FoolThemAll 03-30-2010 02:05 PM

Your restatement isn't a restatement. It's not what he said. That's all that matters here.

Instead of admitting as much when it's plainly obvious, you go on with some imaginary pronoun nonsense.

I'm reminded of why I don't frequent this board as often.

The_Dunedan 03-30-2010 04:29 PM

Quote:

You've missed my point entirely.
Likewise.

Quote:

I'm saying there's no goose and gander. There's goose and tomahawk missile. There's no kick in the teeth vs punch in the balls. It's kick in the teeth vs knife through the heart.
I disagree.

Quote:

I reject entirely that there's ANY equivalency between what's being said about Obama and what was said about Bush, and I assert that an attempt to create an equivalency both minimizes the disaster Bush was, and rationalizes away the damage these sore losing tea partiers are doing.
And -I- reject entirely that there is any workable difference between the two, -or- what was said about them, -or- the damage they have done and will continue to do to this country. Bush fucked the economy (more). Obama took that fucked-up economy, propped up the people who fucked it up, and nationalized a significant portion thereof, thereby hitching my (and everyone else's) collective wagon to that enormous collection of bipartisan up-fuckery for the rest of forever whether we wished it or supported it or no. Two roads are being taken to the same horrible destination; stagflation, loss of national and international prestige and influence, eroded personal, economic, and civil liberties, devalued currency...I can go on, but won't.

Mr. Bush started wars under false pretenses.
Mr. Obama is continuing those wars, under equally false pretenses.

Mr. Bush fucked up the economy and nationalised the results, what several Wall Street Journal commentators at the time referred to as "Socialization Of Debt."
Mr. Obama has instituted steps that will, I believe, -further- fuck up the economy, nationalised much thereof, and will further nationalise any further up-fuckery just as his predecessor did.
Both people carried out these actions at the behest of vested-interest parties only out to aggrandize their power and enlarge their purses. Mr. Bush made his payments in deference to various Wall Street banks and multinational trading conglomerates, Mr. Obama to leftist pressure groups and Unions. Both sold their constituents a bill of goods in order to pass favours to the people who both got them elected and pull their strings.

Mr. Bush was a right-collectivist with his thumb on the Big Red Button.
Mr. Obama is a left-collectivist with his thumb on the Big Red Button.

Given that collectivism in general is built upon the premise that "the needs of the many (no matter how many) outweigh the needs of the few (no matter how few, and no matter the needs)," I do not trust collectivists with their thumbs on buttons to not destroy the world. If a large/persuasive enough collective wants some destructive act to occur, collectivism guarantees that it will occur. I have been "reminded" here repeatedly that "there is no right or wrong; political consensus is all that's required." I do not trust that mentality, whencever it springs, with the power to destroy.

pan6467 03-30-2010 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll (Post 2773335)
Your restatement isn't a restatement. It's not what he said. That's all that matters here.

Instead of admitting as much when it's plainly obvious, you go on with some imaginary pronoun nonsense.

I'm reminded of why I don't frequent this board as often.

Attack the writer or some minute detail rather than debate what was written. Classic tactic used by those who wrote here to defend Bush and now those writing to defend Obama.

dc_dux 03-30-2010 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2773415)
Attack the writer or some minute detail rather than debate what was written. Classic tactic used by those who wrote here to defend Bush and now those writing to defend Obama.

pan, speaking only for myself, I try to defend the facts and debunk the myths and I have seen you characterize that defense of the facts as a defense of Obama.

I think you often see what you want and not what is written.

pan6467 03-30-2010 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773418)
I think you often see what you want and not what is written.

We ALL do. We see things from our perspective and life experiences and apply them to our posts and how we interact on here and IRL. It's the way the human condition is.

dc_dux 03-31-2010 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2773435)
We ALL do. We see things from our perspective and life experiences and apply them to our posts and how we interact on here and IRL. It's the way the human condition is.

I would agree to some extent. But some, more than others, let their emotions override the facts far more frequently.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360