Obama General Discussion II - Page 44 - 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 01-30-2011, 03:41 AM   #646
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,049
Local Time: 06:23 AM
__________________

__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 03:48 AM   #647
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 02:23 PM
I see them almost every day. Central PA has a lot of conservative idiots.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 04:53 AM   #648
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I completely agree. I'm a bit pissed that Matthews would do such a thing. Now the conversation is going to be about how he did this interview instead of how stupid Bachmann is, which has to be what the GOP wants. Instead of having to defend her, they'll be able to attack Matthews as a part of the big bad liberal media attacking the Tea Party* and their "grounds root movement."

*Sponsored by Koch Industries.
Not to say everything between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh is a horrible, backwards area of the country, but I've lived in SE PA and even in traditionally more left-leaning areas there are a ton of idiots.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:19 AM   #649
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I completely agree. I'm a bit pissed that Matthews would do such a thing. Now the conversation is going to be about how he did this interview instead of how stupid Bachmann is, which has to be what the GOP wants. Instead of having to defend her, they'll be able to attack Matthews as a part of the big bad liberal media attacking the Tea Party* and their "grounds root movement."


oh well. maybe i'm lowering the discourse as well, but i enjoyed the Matthew's tongue lashing of such offensive stupidity. to me, it felt cathartic, and truth be told, i do feel that in some way these people -- the blind prophet Bachmann, the super-hot Esther of white identity Palin -- and their barely literate pronouncements must be stopped. they literally get up and tell lies not about policy, but about easily refutable (refutiateable?) facts about American history. if they are not forcefully called out, then are we not contributing to everyone getting stupider? i think Matthews was reacting to the incredibly offensive notion that Bachmann was trying to say that some slaveholders were just misunderstood, and she's trying to whitewash history so that they may be more like her perfect blond, blue-eyed, lily-white Christ.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:33 AM   #650
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
oh well. maybe i'm lowering the discourse as well, but i enjoyed the Matthew's tongue lashing of such offensive stupidity.
I enjoyed it too! I found immensely it entertaining particularly because I agreed with Matthews. (Had it been someone fulminating about something I disagreed with I would have been righteously irritated).

But that we enjoyed is beside the point. The point is the whole reason people like Bachmann and Palin have traction in our culture today is because far too many people would prefer their politicians be entertaining and are willing to tolerate sketchy facts as long as what they're hearing appeals to their emotions and makes them feel good. I don't want to live in a society where the winner is the person who is better at aruging down the other.

And while we're at it, Matthews wasn't quoting Bachmann correctly either. He kept saying that she said the founding fathers ended slavery and/or that slavery had ceased to exist at a time when it hadn't. That really bugged me, because while it strengthened his verbal takedown of Russo, it wasn't quite true. Classic Right-Wing Radio/TV tactic there and deplorable. If Russo hadn't been so bent on staying on message he could have called Matthews on it. The fact is that what Bachmann said was dishonest enough without Matthews having to exaggerate it. Her argument was that the "founding fathers" worked "tirelessly" to end slavery which was a lot of nonsense--completely revisionist. It was not, however, that "slavery ended in 1789" which is what Matthews was suggesting by the end of his rant. It's an important distinction, and if one side is going to take the high road we can't stoop to indulging in that kind of looseness with the facts.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 12:15 PM   #651
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
The point of posting this was....? Do we really want a thread that devolves into dueling bumper stickers?


Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 01-30-2011, 12:19 PM   #652
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?
... What? We're talking about Bachmann.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 02:02 PM   #653
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?


please do repost whatever right wing blog that's told you that Bachmann was right and Matthews was wrong.

because that's not at all the issue here, but i know you've got to find one item that's open to interpretation and make the argument about that rather than about Michelle Bachmann's ghastly attempts to rewrite American history.

really, what's at issue here is a pundit and not an elected politician.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 02:09 PM   #654
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Her argument was that the "founding fathers" worked "tirelessly" to end slavery which was a lot of nonsense--completely revisionist. It was not, however, that "slavery ended in 1789" which is what Matthews was suggesting by the end of his rant. It's an important distinction, and if one side is going to take the high road we can't stoop to indulging in that kind of looseness with the facts.


stop making so much sense, Sean.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 02:50 PM   #655
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because that's not at all the issue here, but i know you've got to find one item that's open to interpretation and make the argument about that rather than about Michelle Bachmann's ghastly attempts to rewrite American history.

really, what's at issue here is a pundit and not an elected politician.
What Bachmann said of course didn't make sense, and I'm not going to try to justify what she might have meant. However, that clip of Matthews (who you just said admire his "knowledge" of history) is just laughable. And it's not just him. People who try to paint the founders as significantly pro-slavery or believe the myriad of untruths about the three-fifths compromise are equally guilty. Again, what Bachmann said was dumb, but there's plenty of ignorance of history to go around.

Did you hear what Chuck Schumer (another elected politician- elected by many more people than Bachmann is, but I digress) said this morning? He said the three branches of the federal government are the House, the Senate and the Presidency. There's a real Constitutional scholar.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 01-30-2011, 08:20 PM   #656
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
People who try to paint the founders as significantly pro-slavery or believe the myriad of untruths about the three-fifths compromise are equally guilty.


again, what's actually at issue here?

further, JQA was hardly a "founder."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:30 PM   #657
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
The point of posting this was....? Do we really want a thread that devolves into dueling bumper stickers?
Awww, 2861, I thought you'd applaud that one.

Could it be you disagree with disagree with bumper sticker's sentiments? :hopeful:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?
Do tell. What is the correct interpretation of the three-fifths compromise?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:32 PM   #658
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
stop making so much sense, Sean.
sorry. Will try to do better.

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:33 PM   #659
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 08:23 AM


a friend of mine on facebook tagged me in this photo and included the following comment.

Quote:
For a laugh, I thought I'd watch her response to the SOTU again, and I noticed something - forgive me if it's been pointed out before.

She's claiming that unemployment spiked in the first of those last three years. And it does look like it - just over 6% to 10.1%.

But hold on. Obama has been president since January 2009. That's two full years. Bachmann is claiming that he's presided over three years of massive unemployment, including the 2009 spike to 10.1%.

In the same graph, she shows the time every year that these figures are released - December. So the last three figures were released as follows:

End 2010 - 9.4%
End 2009 - 9.7%
End 2008 - 10.1%

All in blue. Can you see the problem here? I'm only spelling this out to make sure I cover all my bases.

Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. But somehow, Bachmann is claiming that he presided in that massive spike of unemployment from ~6% to 10.1%. Literally impossible.

But we all know who was in charge when that wonderful figure was released, don't we?

Yup. G. W. Bush.

So let's get this straight. Between Dec 2005 and Dec 2008, under GEORGE W. BUSH, unemployment went from just over 4% to 10.1%. Including that massive spike of 4% in 2008.

After Obama took over, unemployment has been steadily falling - not as much as we want, sure, but still falling - from 10.1% to 9.4%.

Michele Bachmann and the army of right-wing hacks want you to believe that Obama has caused rising unemployment.

Here's the truth - these guys are either ridiculously stupid, or downright bald-faced liars. Neither of which should be trusted with the task of government.

I really hope this has already been pointed out.
heh heh heh.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 01-31-2011, 04:33 AM   #660
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,049
Local Time: 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
The point of posting this was....? Do we really want a thread that devolves into dueling bumper stickers?
a mate who just got back from America posted it on facebook. i wanted to post it on interference because i was curious to see what people would think. i have absolutely zero understanding of American politics. i don't mean to start something.

to show my sincere lack of understanding, Angus Peef said "central PA has a lot of conservative idiots". now the way i understand the word conservative, that is a mindboggling contradiction because if i were to describe someone as "conservative" then you can bet your life savings that they wouldn't have a political bumper sticker on their car.
__________________

__________________
cobl04 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 02:23 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