GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2 - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-23-2011, 03:06 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I'm going to regret wading back into FYM, but...

Let's stop with the narrative that "the crowd" booed the soldier. Multiple people here have said that now. It was one or two people.

Sunshine State Sarah: The Truth About the Booing at the Debate

"I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back. The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc. There was a concrete floor beneath all of our chairs. Ever been in a metal shop or warehouse with a concrete floor? Certain sounds can really resonate on that kind of surface."
It's true that it's only a small number of individuals engaging in audible booing.

But, in general, your reactions to these kind of incidents, and not just on the gay rights issue, always seems to me to attempt to downplay them, or say the other side has extremists too, as though that makes it alright. You never seem to be willing to take on the extremism in your own party. Didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 03:14 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 07:55 PM
i think Perry is going to sink like a stone. even someone like Michelle Malkin is freaking out.

it's either Romney -- who continues to prove that he's literate, informed, and nimble on his feet, even if he's wrong -- or ...
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 03:21 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 07:55 PM
and the wild cheering after Santorum's response is every bit as disrespectful to the gay soldier as the "boo's" were.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 03:22 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:55 AM
I thought Romney came across tired and at times vaguely irritable in that debate. However Romney is electable in a way that the others aren't. Presidential candidates don't win elections on appealing to kooks. The right wing foaming at the mouth brigade is and always has been minority in American politics.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 03:24 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and the wild cheering after Santorum's response is every bit as disrespectful to the gay soldier as the "boo's" were.
All of which offers fertile ground for liberals to drive home a "Tea Party hates the troops" framing moment. Liberals and centrists shouldn't let these kooks off the hook.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 03:28 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,253
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
It's true that it's only a small number of individuals engaging in audible booing.

But, in general, your reactions to these kind of incidents, and not just on the gay rights issue, always seems to me to attempt to downplay them, or say the other side has extremists too, as though that makes it alright. You never seem to be willing to take on the extremism in your own party. Didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
See, now you're losing me. When did I say anything about the other side? I'm trying to set the record straight from the notion that "the crowd" booed when that is clearly an unfair charge. You're talking to someone who actually supports the repeal of DADT and believes the majority of "my" party is wrong here.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 03:46 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2
I'm going to regret wading back into FYM, but...

Let's stop with the narrative that "the crowd" booed the soldier. Multiple people here have said that now. It was one or two people.

Sunshine State Sarah: The Truth About the Booing at the Debate

"I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back. The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc. There was a concrete floor beneath all of our chairs. Ever been in a metal shop or warehouse with a concrete floor? Certain sounds can really resonate on that kind of surface."
I've been saying this for years, here's where I see the difference:

The booing of this soldier, the cheering of letting the man in the coma die, the cheering of executions, the racist tea party signs, etc. They all might be a vocal minority, but no one would know it because no one speaks out against it, in fact many of you go out of your to defend and try to explain how it's not how it seems. And even more appalling is that your policies often back the sentiment.

To me silent bigotry is just as bad if not worse than vocal bigotry.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 04:57 PM   #38
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:55 AM
^ I think part of the problem might be that there's a perception among many Republicans that the aghast Democratic response to these moments is generally of a contrivedly self-righteous nature, and reflects a desire to shut down all policy argument more than it does genuine moral indignation. There might also be some sense of, This is an internal argument between conservatives, not an 'American' argument, so keep your opportunistic fingers out of it. No doubt there are also textbook fence-sitters who (for example) often flinch at the blunt homophobia of the far right but are too uncomfortable around gay people themselves to take a stand, but that's probably a largely separate issue from the response to 'outside' condemnation. In some ways it's a little bit like the common liberal response to the use of 'socialist(ic)'--no one considers that a character assessment exactly, so it's different in that way, but nonetheless for many that word remains as loaded as if it were a hand grenade.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 05:19 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 07:55 PM
here's an interesting take on it, and on Romney's weakness-but-also-strengths as a candidate:


Quote:
Romney’s flaws as a primary candidate are numerous, but the two most serious are his legacy of supporting health-care reform and other moderate stances, and his refined temperament, which puts him far out of step with his party’s mood. But it’s important to understand the precise nature of that mood, and I’m beginning to think that Romney does.

Three moments during the last two debates captured the mentality of the Republican base. The first came in the previous debate, when some crowd members shouted that an uninsured man with a fatal illness should be allowed to die. Another occurred when a gay soldier serving in Iraq appeared on the video board to ask if he could be allowed to continue serving and was booed.

These expressions clearly reflect the straightforward policy implications of conservative principles. At the same time, I don’t think they ought to be taken purely at face value. I believe few conservative Republicans feel visceral hostility toward sick, uninsured people or gay soldiers. Rather, their booing is an expression of tribal partisan solidarity. These people are presenting challenges to the Republican dogma — living, breathing examples of the failures of their stance. They represent a challenge to the tribe, and the crowd is booing them for this, but not necessarily thinking through the substantive merits of their position.

This is essentially the way Romney is treating the conservative mood. Yes, conservatives have developed a series of policy stances — say, that subsidizing and regulating private health insurance is the greatest threat to freedom in American history. Rather than treat this as a principled view, Romney simply treats it as an atavistic expression of hostility toward Obama. He defends his Massachusetts plan by pointing out that it involves private insurance. That makes it exactly the same as Obama’s plan, but Romney probably figures most conservative voters don’t know that, and he’s probably right. Here's a good example of Romney on health care:

Obamacare intends to put someone between you and your physician. It must be repealed. And if I'm president of the United States, on my first day in office, I will issue an executive order which directs the secretary of health and human services to provide a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. That law is bad; it's unconstitutional; it shall not stand.


Rather he uses every question as an opportunity to convey to conservatives that he shares their general sense of anger and grievance against Obama. He does so without, in most cases, tying himself down to specific policy stances that could harm him in the general election.

I had assumed that Romney would face insurmountable obstacles because he is not, at heart, a true conservative. But this turns out to be something that allows him to pander to the base more effectively. It allows him to treat conservatism as a psychological condition, one he can pander to without the complicating burden of taking it seriously. (His contempt for the party base has always endeared him to me.)

Reconsidering Romney’s Chances -- Daily Intel
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 08:25 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
^ I think part of the problem might be that there's a perception among many Republicans that the aghast Democratic response to these moments is generally of a contrivedly self-righteous nature, and reflects a desire to shut down all policy argument more than it does genuine moral indignation. There might also be some sense of, This is an internal argument between conservatives, not an 'American' argument, so keep your opportunistic fingers out of it. No doubt there are also textbook fence-sitters who (for example) often flinch at the blunt homophobia of the far right but are too uncomfortable around gay people themselves to take a stand, but that's probably a largely separate issue from the response to 'outside' condemnation. In some ways it's a little bit like the common liberal response to the use of 'socialist(ic)'--no one considers that a character assessment exactly, so it's different in that way, but nonetheless for many that word remains as loaded as if it were a hand grenade.
Can't agree, TBH. The failure of the US conservative movement to criticise homophobia in its midst is moral cowardice, pure and simple.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 08:27 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I've been saying this for years, here's where I see the difference:

The booing of this soldier, the cheering of letting the man in the coma die, the cheering of executions, the racist tea party signs, etc. They all might be a vocal minority, but no one would know it because no one speaks out against it, in fact many of you go out of your to defend and try to explain how it's not how it seems. And even more appalling is that your policies often back the sentiment.

To me silent bigotry is just as bad if not worse than vocal bigotry.
All I can gather is that some very strange, twisted, odd people seem to fly the conservative flag in America these days.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 08:28 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
See, now you're losing me. When did I say anything about the other side? I'm trying to set the record straight from the notion that "the crowd" booed when that is clearly an unfair charge.
Would it have happened at a Democratic congress?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 08:50 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
CONVENTION 2000 / THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION; NOTES; Rooms: $260, Phones Extra; A Walk on the Wild Side; [Home Edition]

Faye Fiore and Steve Chawkins.
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 17, 2000. pg. 4

No Gaiety Over Pledge; Full-Frontal Tipper

In Philadelphia, we learned, a crowd once booed Santa Claus. But members of the usually mellow California delegation trumped Philly on Tuesday night when they booed the Boy Scouts leading conventioneers in the pledge of allegiance. The Scouts don't allow openly gay leaders, and their presence onstage did not sit well with some of the 434 Californians, 34 of whom are openly gay.

"It's such an affront," Assemblywoman Carole Migden of San Francisco complained after the Scouts disbanded their Norman Rockwell montage. "We're going to pursue who made this decision and why and make sure it doesn't happen again."
There's boneheads in every crowd and sometimes they're even gay.

I was impressed by the whole field last night and understand perfectly why Democrats now feel their only hope to win next fall is to portray the GOP as "Barbarians at the gate."
"Pay no attention to the stock market, lack of job creation, trillion dollar deficits, our bond downgrade, the looming recession or our hapless president and his sinking approval... no, focus your attention to the reprobates in the crowd at GOP debates and the greedy, not-paying-their-fair-share rich.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:23 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Boy Scouts = US soldiers during wartime?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:40 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Boy Scouts = private organization that actively discriminates against gays. They are free to do so. But no one has to applaud them. A soldier IN IRAQ is entirely different.

Seriously INDY? You were impressed? Why doesnt te rest of the right agree with you?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com