"My name is Mr Moneybags and I endorse thrashing that rich fucker"

[Verbal Mike]

What vex said.

[N E T]

All in all, I think Cain is correct that there are very large issues at stake that nobody's even talking about -- that the two American parties already agree on. And maybe Sam Jackson should be using his talents to change those things, instead of rallying people around a president who is complicit in them. But I don't buy the argument that because he has money, he should forfeit his right to draw attention to Supply-Side vampirism, or that he is a "hypocrite" because he campaigns for issues that matter to him instead of issues that matter to us.

This.

[LMNO]

Cain, I loved your rant.  Fucking loved it.  Because, I admit, I was kind of Smarked (thanks for that term IJ!) by it.  Mostly the rule of cool, because SLJ is a badass motherfucker.

But your rants always dismantle things in the most unexpected ways, for me.  Sure, I "know" the things you laid out, there wasn't anything new, but the way you put it togther turned it up to 11, connected the dots, underscored the fundamental ugly nature of it all.

But I still can't help think that Romney would do the exact same thing as Obama, and then add a whole bunch of supply-side trickle-down bullshit on top of that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Good rant.

I read the primary indictment in Jackson's ad not as "Romney is rich", but as "Romney is disconnected and his primary interest is in protecting his wealth". Therefore, before accepting charges of hypocrisy, the questions I would ask are not "Is Jackson similarly rich?" but "Is Jackson similarly disconnected?" and "Is Jackson similarly interested in protecting his wealth?"

[Phox]

Good rant.

I read the primary indictment in Jackson's ad not as "Romney is rich", but as "Romney is disconnected and his primary interest is in protecting his wealth". Therefore, before accepting charges of hypocrisy, the questions I would ask are not "Is Jackson similarly rich?" but "Is Jackson similarly disconnected?" and "Is Jackson similarly interested in protecting his wealth?"

I agree with this, as my initial reaction was not that Jackson was saying "millionaires are bad, but don't look at my millions of dollars". I would also add the minor quibble that your last question, Nigel, is perhaps too narrow? Not sure if that's the right way to phrase that, but I don't think it's unreasonable of a person to want to protect their own wealth, but maybe rephrase it as "Is Jackson similarly interested in protecting his wealth and the wealth of others, at any cost?" Though, maybe I'm putting a bit too much thought into it at that point.

[Cain]

It was funny, folks. Sam does that.

Cain, your writing style has certainly sharpened since I last saw you.

Thanks.  I've actually been worried about my writing style lately, so it's something I'm paying more attention to now.  I'm glad it's paying off.

I'm sure that there are people whose lives have improved thanks to Obama's policies, who are pretty far down on society's lists of concerns.  Or who soon will be.  ACA, for all its flaws, is a huge achievement.  I'm also fairly sure that McCain and Caribou Barbie would have mangled the economy beyond all recognition by this point, going by their list of economic advisors.

That said, it's not good enough, and there is room for improvement.  There is always room for improvement, except on liberal blogs, where mentioning Obama's reign may not be perfect will result in cries of "unserious leftist" and bouts of random hippie punching. Not that hippies don't deserve to be punched, as a general rule, but picking fights with pacifists is a bit lame.

[Cain]

Cain, I loved your rant.  Fucking loved it.  Because, I admit, I was kind of Smarked (thanks for that term IJ!) by it.  Mostly the rule of cool, because SLJ is a badass motherfucker.

But your rants always dismantle things in the most unexpected ways, for me.  Sure, I "know" the things you laid out, there wasn't anything new, but the way you put it togther turned it up to 11, connected the dots, underscored the fundamental ugly nature of it all.

But I still can't help think that Romney would do the exact same thing as Obama, and then add a whole bunch of supply-side trickle-down bullshit on top of that.

Firstly, thanks.

In regards to Romney, sure he would.  He'd be a terrible President, in addition to possibly foreshadowing the Mormon Apocalypse.

But that's an actual policy based argument.  "Romney's a rich, out of touch millionaire" is not a policy argument, especially when it's being made by other rich, out of touch millionaires.  It's simply hoping to capitalize on class resentment, by people who are more like the person they are criticizing (based on class similarities) than the people they are appealing to.

That's what annoys me.  It's no different than watching Newt Gringrinch warble on about the sanctity of marriage, except Newt gets rightly mocked in liberal circles for his hypocrisy.

[LMNO]

I'd love to share your rant, but I have no idea which of the myriad, idiotic, passive, drone-like infofeeds this could possibly fit into.

[Eater of Clowns]

Jackson and the type that would be moved by his video are just smart marks.  Sure they might have a better grasp of the policies but they're just as manipulated as the ones that vote on the one with the best hair.

The term I've heard is a Smark.  They're smart, hip to the game and how it's played, they might even be able to draw on some of the lingo used by real insiders, but they're still marks.  Hence a Smark.  A puppet who knows the strings are there, but is incapable of seeing their own strings.

I dig it.  It was actually a conversation you had with Luna in another thread about pro wrestling that made me remember the mark/smart mark terms.

I can forgive Samuel L Jackson for making anti rich comments if only because I'm pretty sure he wasn't born into the complete separate wealth bubble that Romney is unable to see beyond.  My problem is that he's urging people to buy into the con.

[Internet Jesus]

Jackson and the type that would be moved by his video are just smart marks.  Sure they might have a better grasp of the policies but they're just as manipulated as the ones that vote on the one with the best hair.

The term I've heard is a Smark.  They're smart, hip to the game and how it's played, they might even be able to draw on some of the lingo used by real insiders, but they're still marks.  Hence a Smark.  A puppet who knows the strings are there, but is incapable of seeing their own strings.

I dig it.  It was actually a conversation you had with Luna in another thread about pro wrestling that made me remember the mark/smart mark terms.

Someone actually read that discussion?  Shit I thought I was being boring.

It's a useful distinction to keep in mind whenever you're discussing anything wherein a good portion of the participants are fans of something at a surface level.  It can be mapped out all to hell, with varying degrees of being a mark vs being smart, but in the final analysis, unless you're they guy trying to get something over, you're a mark at some level.

Which is why I dislike folks who try to paint themselves as being 100% smart.  That's just an example of how much of a mark they are.

(And you're welcome LMNO)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't care what anyone says.

I just like watching Samuel L Jackson yell WAKE THE FUCK UP.  I'd prefer SHUT THE FUCK UP, but beggars can't be choosers.