Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

[FreshFish]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

No need to read anything into anything anymore after this derp factory.

You are right, thanks for the reminder!

I forgot that old chestnut, "people are most aware of those faults in others about which they are most sensitive to in themselves."

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

You are right, thanks for the reminder!

I forgot that old chestnut, "people are most aware of those faults in others about which they are most sensitive to in themselves."

Project much?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I intended my four-quadrent analysis to be descriptive, a form of taxonomy, other people are reading additional implications where none were intended.

If you have a graph with an axis that runs left to right from radical to conservative, and an axis that runs bottom to top as liberal to totalitarian, then in the upper left we have the radical totalitarian Barack Obama (at least he comes out and says so directly! he's proud and unapologetic, and I'm fine with that.) In the upper right you would place Rick Santorum as a right-wing totalitarian (I don't know enough about him, I'll take your word for it). In the lower right, I'd place Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, as right-wing liberals or as liberal conservatives or however you want to say it, and in the lower left, I'd place Andrew Cuomo as a radical liberal or a left-wing liberal or however you want to say it.

In NY state, the politics currently are dominated by public-sector unions, which are so far to the right that they are beyond conservative, they are reactionary (NOT all public-sector unions, merely NY state public sector unions), and so in NY you need a radical to take them on if you are going to have any money left over to service the social-welfare programs that are essential to the liberal agenda.

Your post shows logic yet is off in terms of reality and as a result, your process is loaded.

First in terms of this economic liberalism aspect...its waay off to consider the spectrum to include totalitarian/liberal. No presidential candidate in our lifetime has been a 'totalitarian' and to infer it is to whitewash the situation. Someone with an opposing point of view would probably call the labels...business with boundaries or business without boundaries...and they'd be off also but closer than yours.

Second in terms of left vs. right spectrum..again you misrepresent the discussion in terms of radical vs. conservative. If you look back over time, Barry Goldwater an extreme conservative for the 60s and 70s was appalled by how much further right the GOP had moved by the 90s. Indeed, those in the 90s have been left in the dust by the extreme rhetoric on the right now days. Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Goldwater these guys would all be 'flaming liberals' by today's standards. So I would say its probably more accurate to call this spectrum liberal vs. radical. And some from the left would probably call that spectrum liberal vs. totalitarian as we've seen by social conservative inroads into our personal lives such as government enforced vaginal procedures.

[duper]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I intended my four-quadrent analysis to be descriptive, a form of taxonomy, other people are reading additional implications where none were intended.

If you have a graph with an axis that runs left to right from radical to conservative, and an axis that runs bottom to top as liberal to totalitarian, then in the upper left we have the radical totalitarian Barack Obama (at least he comes out and says so directly! he's proud and unapologetic, and I'm fine with that.) In the upper right you would place Rick Santorum as a right-wing totalitarian (I don't know enough about him, I'll take your word for it). In the lower right, I'd place Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, as right-wing liberals or as liberal conservatives or however you want to say it, and in the lower left, I'd place Andrew Cuomo as a radical liberal or a left-wing liberal or however you want to say it.

In NY state, the politics currently are dominated by public-sector unions, which are so far to the right that they are beyond conservative, they are reactionary (NOT all public-sector unions, merely NY state public sector unions), and so in NY you need a radical to take them on if you are going to have any money left over to service the social-welfare programs that are essential to the liberal agenda.

I honestly think your taxonomy is seriously flawed. I think (I hope?) that everyone knows that liberalism and conservativism are not polar opposites; they can't be because they are not the poles of the spectrum. I appreciate that one of your primary points is that these two groups are not really opposites.

I would think that the poles of the spectrum would be totalitarianism (total control by the government) and anarchy. No one in today's US is anywhere near either of those poles, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read some more history, and engage in a little more world travel. Economically, American liberals are to the left of conservatives, and therefore close-ER (but not close) to totalitarianism, but progressivism tends to be about social issues, and I would argue that socially American conservatives are to the left of American liberals. If I were to try to scale Americans in four quadrants, I would use a social axis and a fiscal axis, and each would run from totalitarian to anarchist.

Of course, VERY few Americans would be anywhere near any of the corners. We would probably all be bundled into one relatively small area.

Oh, and I did not take offense per se, nor did I think you meant any about the totalitrian thing. I just think it showed how very flawed your reasoning was. I do think totalitarianism is bad, at this time in this place. Certainly many (possibly most prior to about 1900) philosophers have espoused it, but the assumptions made; that a monarch or some such honestly have the best interests of the people at heart, and so on are not realistic in a society as pluralistic as the one in which we live.

For example, allowing me as en employer to determine that any of my employees who want a certain medical procedure must pay for it 100 percent out of their own pockets because my religious views are that the procedure in question is immoral, works fine if the vast majority of people in my society agree with me. When that is not the case, this is a problem.

And yes, I realize, the same analogy can be drawn for plenty of "progressive" ideals.

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

In general, American liberals tolerate more government control in economic areas and push for much greater personal freedom in social-religious areas, while conservatives are the opposite -- in that way they are equidistant from totalitarianism. Populism (the economic left married to the social-religious right) is the closest we get to real totalitarianism in America, and currently populism is happily in eclipse.

I'm always surprised by how much the far right projects their own obsessions with charismatic, religious concepts of The One onto everybody else. We aren't waiting for a Messiah, kids, that's your gig. Outside of the 10% fringe, Americans just don't think that way, we're pragmatists. It reminds me of how the far left in the US always misunderstands the center-left and right by erroneously projecting their own obsession with racism onto the rest of the country.

It's one of the biggest barriers to real political discourse: the people way out on the poles live in bizarre constructs which simply make no sense for the vast majority of us. This would not be a problem but they are always trying to cram everybody else into their hallucinations, and they interpret our tolerance of their wackiness as implicit agreement. It's a lot like dealing with paranoids. So sometimes we run across statements like "liberals are totalitarians" or "conservatives are racist," concocted by nutbars and dutifully dittoed by the more easily led, which are so fundamentally wrong that they are honestly just not worth bothering with. About 80% of the country is capable of actually having a conversation. The 10% on either wing simply are not, and there's not a lot to be gained banging your head against those walls.

The good news is in some other countries those 10% wings are 20% or 25% of the population, so there are enormous subcultures of people with nothing useful to add to the political debate. Here those numbers are mercifully lower, albeit very loud.

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

In general, American liberals tolerate more government control in economic areas and push for much greater personal freedom in social areas. Populism (the economic left and the social right) is the closest we get to real totalitarianism in America, and currently populism is happily in eclipse.

I'm always surprised by how much the far right projects their own obsessions with charismatic, religious concepts of The One onto everybody else. We aren't waiting for a Messiah, kids, that's your gig. Outside of the 10% fringe, Americans just don't think that way, we're pragmatists. It reminds me of how the far left in the US always misunderstands the center-left and right by erroneously projecting their own obsession with racism onto the rest of the country.

It's one of the biggest barriers to real political discourse -- the people way out on the poles live in bizarre constructs which simply make no sense for the vast majority of us. It's a lot like dealing with paranoids. So sometimes we run across statements like "liberals are totalitarians" or "conservatives are racist," concocted by nutbars and dutifully dittoed by the more easily led, which are so fundamentally wrong that they are honestly just not worth bothering with. About 80% of the country is capable of actually having a conversation. The 10% on either wing simply are not, and there's not a lot to be gained banging your head against those walls.

The good news is in some other countries those 10% wings are 20% or 25% of the population, so there are enormous subcultures of people with nothing useful to add to the political debate. Here those numbers are mercifully lower, albeit very loud.

The One? Wait, I'm confused. Isn't that what His Transcriptlessness called himself? And didn't you guys all rush to the polls to validate that nonsense? As usual, you try to portrary yourself as somehow above the political divide, yet you have a striking record of thinking from only one side. You have written bitterly, and frequently, about the American "empire," and how the only appropriate defense spending is for salaries (it's not clear what you think about benefits). You must have a low regard for the intellect of people who post here, since you seem to think they haven't noticed and don't care about your consistent anti-American tone. Or am I being "political?"

BTW, I just love that "sometimes we run across statements that conservatives are racist." "Sometimes"? Really? Try every freaking time any liberal gets a chance to open his mouth! The "nutbars" who advance the notion of conservative "racism" include the President (remember how he ran to the barricades to defend his rich, black, professor buddy from the "stupid" police)? In a city with a black mayor and police chief and a state with a black governor. Clearly, Selma. "Sometimes." Please, not to make me laugh.

[duper]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

The One? Wait, I'm confused. Isn't that what His Transcriptlessness called himself? And didn't you guys all rush to the polls to validate that nonsense? As usual, you try to portrary yourself as somehow above the political divide, yet you have a striking record of thinking quite the other way. You have written bitterly, and frequently about the American "empire," and how the only appropriate defense spending is for salaries (it's not clear what you think about benefits). You must have a low regard for the intellect of people who post here, since you seem to think they haven't noticed and don't care about your consistent anti-American tone. Or am I being "political?"

BTW, I just love that "sometimes we run across statements that conservatives are racist." Sometimes? Really? Try every freaking time any liberal gets a chance to open his mouth! Sometimes. Please, not to make me laugh.

I won't claim to speak for anyone else, although by anecdotal evidence I feel that I am by no means alone, but I certainly didn't think Obama was "the one." I thought he was the strongest presidential candidate the Democratic party had put up since Clinton, and came at a time when I just couldn't stomach the direction the Presidency was going. Four years later, I still don't think he's the one, but I do think he has been a good President, and is a good candidate for re-election.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I really think the "Social Issues" axis is the dominant one. Both parties are in favor of cutting government spending that doesn't directly benefit them or their constituents. More to the point, both parties have roughly zero problem with spending where it *will* benefit them. The results are obvious.

Likewise, with regulation . . . it's tough to take the anti-government intervention rhetoric seriously. Not just because social conservatives are all about social regulation (though they are). Even on economic policy. I kicked around redstate for a few minutes and ran across an article promoting all sorts of regulatory and tax interventions on behalf of certain interests. Change the subject from gas prices to something else, and I'm sure that guy will be among the first to return to the "we can't have government picking winners and losers" trope.

So there's my suggestion. Ignore the economic lies and vote for the person you agree with more on social policies (and who would be better at nominating the next S.C. Justice, from your perspective).

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

The One? Wait, I'm confused. Isn't that what His Transcriptlessness called himself? And didn't you guys all rush to the polls to validate that nonsense? As usual, you try to portrary yourself as somehow above the political divide, yet you have a striking record of thinking quite the other way. You have written bitterly, and frequently about the American "empire," and how the only appropriate defense spending is for salaries (it's not clear what you think about benefits). You must have a low regard for the intellect of people who post here, since you seem to think they haven't noticed and don't care about your consistent anti-American tone. Or am I being "political?"

BTW, I just love that "sometimes we run across statements that conservatives are racist." Sometimes? Really? Try every freaking time any liberal gets a chance to open his mouth! Sometimes. Please, not to make me laugh.

*****http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg828/scaled.php?server=828&filename=1297852248077.jpg&res=medium******

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I won't claim to speak for anyone else, although by anecdotal evidence I feel that I am by no means alone, but I certainly didn't think Obama was "the one." I thought he was the strongest presidential candidate the Democratic party had put up since Clinton, and came at a time when I just couldn't stomach the direction the Presidency was going. Four years later, I still don't think he's the one, but I do think he has been a good President, and is a good candidate for re-election.

I see your grasp on the obvious is still firm.

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

*****http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg828/scaled.php?server=828&filename=1297852248077.jpg&res=medium******

I'm guessing Act of Valor's gonna give you agita. Enjoy.

[duper]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I see your grasp on the obvious is still firm.

Hmm... If this was obvious to you, why did you suggest that everyone who voted for Obama thought he was some sort of Messiah? there seems to be a disconnect here.

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Hmm... If this was obvious to you, why did you suggest that everyone who voted for Obama thought he was some sort of Messiah? there seems to be a disconnect here.

Drinking from the Well of Wishful Thinking does not make it true. I didn't use nor mean "everyone." However I don't recall any Obamabots rushing to make clear just how silly His Insignificance was. Maybe I missed all those howling denunciations, which one would have expected if a Republican had made the claim.

[duper]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

Drinking from the Well of Wishful Thinking does not make it true. I didn't use nor mean "everyone." However I don't recall any Obamabots rushing to make clear just how silly His Insignificance was for making the claim. Maybe I missed all those howling denunciations, which one would have expected if a Republican had made the claim.

I must have misinterpreted this question.

didn't you guys all rush to the polls to validate that nonsense?

I really must have missed the claim, because I don't think I knew about it.

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!

I'm guessing Act of Valor's gonna give you agita. Enjoy.

I'm guessing you brought or will be bringing a box of tissues and some hand lotion to the theater.