Principia Discordia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

embrace it....
it's wonderful.
:lulz:

 :x:1fap:

Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 03:31:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

Wow - just wow. I am just soooo relieved that she has a birth certificate or else we could be forgiven for mistaking her for some creepy piece of shit that oozed out from between the cracks in the pavement . . .

and the next time anyone wants to ask why the rest of us humans hate Ammurica - don't bother askin' cos for a lot of folks its looney tunes like her . .

Yeah, I saw this on the Daily Show or Colbert Report--can't remember which one--and it just makes flag-waving, jerking-off-to-the-Stars-n-Stripes, git off my lawn-types like her look like idjits.  I gotta wonder how many of these fools are prevalent, or at least their attitude, in the US these days, since Obama got not only the lion's share of electoral votes but also the popular vote.  Something Bushie couldn't do either time around.

But it's ALWAYS gonna be SOMETHING--Obama's got enough issues with his current policies that he started out with, I'd rather see people that shit-faced over their disappointment in how he's running the country, not this red herring bullshit the RightWingNut contingent keeps stirring the dimbulbs of the populace up with.

Ah, yet more proof that Clinton is a coke-dealing rapist Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist.

Quote from: Jenne on July 24, 2009, 04:02:50 PM
.... keeps stirring the dimbulbs of the populace up with.

Madam, you happen to be talking to a card carrying dimbulb!

Quote from: Iptuous on July 24, 2009, 04:19:08 PM

Quote from: Jenne on July 24, 2009, 04:02:50 PM
.... keeps stirring the dimbulbs of the populace up with.

Madam, you happen to be talking to a card carrying dimbulb!

Methinks yers done did expire, Dear Ippy.

"Let's all get up and recite the Pledge of Alliegence!  That'll show them!"
   \
:mullet:

Quote from: Jenne on July 24, 2009, 04:19:52 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 24, 2009, 04:19:08 PM

Quote from: Jenne on July 24, 2009, 04:02:50 PM
.... keeps stirring the dimbulbs of the populace up with.

Madam, you happen to be talking to a card carrying dimbulb!

Methinks yers done did expire, Dear Ippy.

i keep it renewed for the membership perks.  10% of ammo etc...

Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 04:20:30 PM
"Let's all get up and recite the Pledge of Alliegence!  That'll show them!"
   \
:mullet:

You have to admit, there is a certain delicious irony in the wingnuts having an even bigger and less justified (and less dignified) melt down than the American left had in 2000/2004

They seem to EXCEL in meltdowns.  They're spearheaded by the Queen of Meltdowns himself, Rush Loudbag.  Couple that with the Fux'd News Network, you got a whole passle of fucknuts trying really hard to obscure any sort of real political analytical headway with bedazzled bullshit.  It fair sickens, it does.

OMG! The comments! THE COMMENTS!!!  :horrormirth:

How the hell did these people graduate High School?

"Comment pending approval." Ooops.  :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
:lulz:

To help cleanse the palate, here is Chris Matthews knocking G. Gordon Liddy around for 6 minutes about all the Birther talking points. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL0fijgGP4g

I love the fact that he completely ignores the other guest until the very end.   :lulz:

It could be very interesting to challenge a birther to get the Birth Certificate for any resident of Hawaii.

Since HI law doesn't allow it, all the residents of the entire state could have been born in Kenya.

And all be the secret love children of Malcolm X

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 24, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
To help cleanse the palate, here is Chris Matthews knocking G. Gordon Liddy around for 6 minutes about all the Birther talking points. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL0fijgGP4g

I love the fact that he completely ignores the other guest until the very end.   :lulz:

Jesus Christ, what casket did he roll out of?  I thought the poor guy was going to fall asleep. 

People like this make me want to euthanize their seeds.

I love the insistence that it isn't a real birth certificate just because it says 'certificate of live birth'.

Guess what dipshits, different states call documents different things.

Mine says Certificate of Birth Registration (state of NY) and my sister's (FL) says Certificate of Live Birth. I just remember this from one day going through files with my mom and noticing that there is no standard.

I wonder if there's a certificate of dead birth?

:roll:

IIRC, actually, I think there is, for the still-born.

 :|

I know.  But...people want records of such things. *shrug*

Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:25:08 AM
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

g gorden just doesn't seem that into the argument, i get a "i would rather be burning my self with candles than trying to defend this shit" vibe from him...

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 03:38:45 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:25:08 AM
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:52:09 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 03:38:45 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:25:08 AM
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

please bear in mind that i side with the 'birthers' simply because it pleases me to do so.  i haven't looked into the issue even superficially. (although i intend to, so that i can do the talking points well)
the response would be that since there are requirements for the office (natural born citizen, 35 years of age, resident for 14 years), that implies the burden of proof.  if a job position opens up that i desire to fill, and it requires some degree, i can't expect that they hire me simply because i say i have it, or even less so that they must prove that i don't have the degree to disqualify me.....

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 04:45:16 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:52:09 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 03:38:45 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:25:08 AM
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

please bear in mind that i side with the 'birthers' simply because it pleases me to do so.  i haven't looked into the issue even superficially. (although i intend to, so that i can do the talking points well)
the response would be that since there are requirements for the office (natural born citizen, 35 years of age, resident for 14 years), that implies the burden of proof.  if a job position opens up that i desire to fill, and it requires some degree, i can't expect that they hire me simply because i say i have it, or even less so that they must prove that i don't have the degree to disqualify me.....

translation:  I'm an asshat.

Sorry, but I'm not buying.  Like I said--your card is expired.  Also--you're trying to shoehorn the argument, clearly.

Pick on something else, Ippy--there's plenty to choose from.

(May I call you Ippy?  I've been calling Fomenter "Fomie" and Thurenz Isa "Thornie" all week...I think I need to ask permission before I commit a 3rd felony of this genre.)  eta:  after the fact, of course

Quote from: Jenne on July 25, 2009, 04:55:39 AM
translation:  I'm an asshat.

Sorry, but I'm not buying.  Like I said--your card is expired.  Also--you're trying to shoehorn the argument, clearly.

Pick on something else, Ippy--there's plenty to choose from.

(May I call you Ippy?  I've been calling Fomenter "Fomie" and Thurenz Isa "Thornie" all week...I think I need to ask permission before I commit a 3rd felony of this genre.)  eta:  after the fact, of course

Sure, you can call me that.  (better than asshat :wink:)  it saves three keystrokes, i guess....
i'm not quite sure what you're saying.  you're not buying what?  the 'birther's' arguments?  i wouldn't expect you to, if that's what you mean.
what do you mean, my card is expired?  i'm not allowed to hang with people that have put forth one crazy idea or another even if i agree with them on a larger issue? (that being the leviathan is too big, and i support anything that would help it crumble under its own weight)
There's definitely plenty more to choose from, but if it's no more effort than simply checking a box, i will put myself down in the 'support your local birthers' category.... (incidentally, 'no more effort' would preclude sullying my irl self with the association... i'm not putting a bumper sticker on my car over it or anything...)

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 04:45:16 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:52:09 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 03:38:45 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:25:08 AM
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this proof is to be provided, what the proof to be provided is, and to whom does the Constitution say this proof must be provided to?

please bear in mind that i side with the 'birthers' simply because it pleases me to do so.  i haven't looked into the issue even superficially. (although i intend to, so that i can do the talking points well)
the response would be that since there are requirements for the office (natural born citizen, 35 years of age, resident for 14 years), that implies the burden of proof.  if a job position opens up that i desire to fill, and it requires some degree, i can't expect that they hire me simply because i say i have it, or even less so that they must prove that i don't have the degree to disqualify me.....

The student offered a videotape of himself passing the test without cheating but that proof is a fraud therefore he's still a cheat.

I'm well aware of the argument.

Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 03:31:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

Hahahahahaha!

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 03:38:45 AM

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 25, 2009, 03:25:08 AM
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

their response would be that the burden of proof is upon him in order to hold office, and since he doesn't provide the proof that they desire, that indicates that he is falsely representing himself.

Their response is retarded.  The Sec State of Hawaii has certified that he is an American citizen.  This legally certifies that he is, in fact, a natural born US citizen.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this one is just fucking stupid.  It's banal to the point of ass-aching boredom...IOW, it's not funny.  It's fucking retarded, and so is anyone who believes it.

At least it keeps the really stupid people focused on something completely inconsequential. It's like giving a retarded person one of those ball and paddle games. You can leave them alone for hours to do their own thing, then come back hours later and they are still doing the same old shit.

Plus it is a good litmus test on who is credible and who isn't. If I find out that some one is a Birther I can confidently surmise that they have zero critical thinking skills, are easily sway by propaganda, and know next to nothing about politics. I can safely ignore everything they say after that.

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 05:10:51 AMi'm not allowed to hang with people that have put forth one crazy idea or another even if i agree with them on a larger issue? (that being the leviathan is too big, and i support anything that would help it crumble under its own weight)
There's definitely plenty more to choose from, but if it's no more effort than simply checking a box, i will put myself down in the 'support your local birthers' category.... (incidentally, 'no more effort' would preclude sullying my irl self with the association... i'm not putting a bumper sticker on my car over it or anything...)

huh what do you mean? now I'm confused as to what a "birther" is?

i thought it might be some religious or political movement but wikipedia on "birther" redirects to a page specifically about conspiracies on Obama.

so I suppose "birther" means exactly what the name implies, people who believe there's something fishy about Obama's birth?

in which case,

1) what has this to do with the Leviathan being too big and helping it crumble under its own weight. assuming by Leviathan you mean something like the Machine, basically you're doing the discordian sacred task of destructive disorder, great. but supporting the birthers cause it causes disorder is not really agreeing with them on a larger issue. I mean the actual birthers are all probably doing this because they really want a reason to get rid of Obama and really believe this because he's not white and/or republican enough.

2) what is this about checking a box? do you get to check a box for any crazy conspiracy you believe in in America?

Dear government,

I am very (tick all that apply):
[] shocked
[] upset
[] angry
[] amused

that you could deceive the American public to such a large extent.
I am of course referring to:
[] the supposed moon landing
[] Obama's nationality
[] the black helicopters you use to spy on us
[] the flouride in the drinking water
[] letting corporations use dihydrogen  monoxide

We of course will not stand for it. be prepared to have every:
[] mother
[] republican
[] god-fearing patriot
[] crazy guy who yells at people on the subway
[] /b/tard

be called to action to bring the truth to the people.
Thus we give you an ultimatum, call a press conference to address the issue, and tell everybody the truth, by next week, or prepare to face:
[] mass protests
[] strikes
[] boycotts
[] a nude march
[] a mass death stare

Do not try to contact us, we will be in touch.

Sincerely,
_____________________________

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 09:54:23 AM
so I suppose "birther" means exactly what the name implies, people who believe there's something fishy about Obama's birth?

in which case,

1) what has this to do with the Leviathan being too big and helping it crumble under its own weight. assuming by Leviathan you mean something like the Machine, basically you're doing the discordian sacred task of destructive disorder, great. but supporting the birthers cause it causes disorder is not really agreeing with them on a larger issue. I mean the actual birthers are all probably doing this because they really want a reason to get rid of Obama and really believe this because he's not white and/or republican enough.

2) what is this about checking a box? do you get to check a box for any crazy conspiracy you believe in in America?

yes. they say he's not born in america, therefore ineligible to be the pres.  Of course, it's a crock of shit from everything i've seen, and they're grasping at straws, just like the moon hoaxers..... no matter what you present them with, they will dismiss it and move onto some other little detail.  I'm thinking they will eventually decide that the ratification of Hawaii's admission into the Union was unconstitutional or void for some reason....
What amuses me is that there are so many that buy this line.  and the foundation of a govt's legitimacy is the faith of the people in it.  I don't care what other ideals the 'birthers' have that sets them against the pres.  that's incidental to me. however, the majority of them (that i have encountered) seem to believe that the govt. in general has gone out of control under both parties and don't support either.  maybe it's just because the majority of people that i discuss with are pretty fringe, i dunno.  i would also point out that i supported the illegitimacy of bush's 'victory', even though i was certainly not aligned with many of the positions of others who chanted that line either....
at any rate.  it's just funny.

regarding the checkbox thing, yes.  Acorn came to my house with an RFID GPS retinal scanner asking me what i knew about FEMA black sites as a precursor to the 2010 census, and they had a conspiracy checklist, which i assumed was a test to see if i would use it as a dot-to-dot for drawing the compass and square.....  that's the fourth acorn this squirrel has had to bury in the back yard! :wink:

Iptuous, where have you encountered these birthers? At work, perhaps?

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 03:04:29 PM
What amuses me is that there are so many that buy this line.  and the foundation of a govt's legitimacy is the faith of the people in it.  I don't care what other ideals the 'birthers' have that sets them against the pres.  that's incidental to me. however, the majority of them (that i have encountered) seem to believe that the govt. in general has gone out of control under both parties and don't support either.  maybe it's just because the majority of people that i discuss with are pretty fringe, i dunno.  i would also point out that i supported the illegitimacy of bush's 'victory', even though i was certainly not aligned with many of the positions of others who chanted that line either....

have you seen that documentary "right america feeling wronged" that someone linked here a few weeks ago?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7294526473944146040&ei=0RlrSoSGNZLW-AbOh4nUBQ&q=right+america+feeling+wronged

may shed some light on why there are so many that buy this line. they're grasping straws, but that documentary was an eye opener for me as to why. something about the divide between city and rural culture in the USA, they feel Obama is just representing the intellectual elite city people, I nearly even felt sorry for the people in that documentary, they seemed so help/hopeless. very alien, kind of like the religious fundamentalism in the middle east, but not entirely religious, also just .. a very particular kind of americanness.

maybe I'm all wrong about this and got a wrong idea from this documentary, I don't try to judge foreign culture too much if I don't understand it, and that includes American.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with this "intellectual elite" talk is that it vilifies intelligence and people who are quite intelligent, not because of what they do with it but simply because they ARE intelligent. Its in the same line as making sexuality unclean. Just puritain group think ethic.

Really, the oddest thing to me. Its bad to be intelligent and use it? Does that mean its good not to think well, its BAD to be intelligent.

Its good to be stupid? O.o

Its a usage that is dated back the French Revolution.  In particular, Joseph de Maistre.  The thinking was intelligence + political ambitions = social engineering = The Terror.

IOW, "intelligent" urban elites will attempt to create artificial and unsustainable political systems and communities and, when they fail, will resort to killing people who dissent to defend their idea, because the only truly sustainable communities are natural, traditional ones.

There is a modicum of truth to this charge, at least on the extremes of the political spectrum (ie Communism), but all political systems involve social engineering, to one degree or another, and if you put it like I did above to people who use the term, most people would go "watchoo talkin bout?"

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 25, 2009, 03:46:02 PM
Iptuous, where have you encountered these birthers? At work, perhaps?

mmm, i've ecountered some birther sympathy and sentiment atwork, but not really conviction.  which is to be expected as i work in the MIC...

i've encountered it with some friends and one or two family, and quite a few online...
then there's some birther propaganda everyso often on peoples bumperstickers.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 03:54:18 PM
have you seen that documentary "right america feeling wronged" that someone linked here a few weeks ago?

no, i haven't watched it, but i get the understanding based on your description.  There are cultural divides which largely fall upon rural/urban demographics, but i believe that is simply because it coincides with what i believe is the primary split, being individualism/collectivism.
i'll have to watch it.


Re: what Kai said, what Cain said.  however, i think there is more that a modicum of truth to it...  and i believe that you are undeservedly discounting the intellect of the rural communities which you are referring to.  you are seeing what you want to see, and what those who you listen to what you to see.  (as we all are, of course...)

to be fair when i said "intellectual elite city people", my emphasis was on "city people", it's more like the rural/urban divide (or perhaps what Iptuous says, individual/collective), and "intellectual elite" not really based on intelligence but on the way both parties talk and present themselves, which has not much to do with intelligence and there's enough dumb people in the city too. hm wait this is also wrong, but they arent my words but those in the documentary :)

also, as an outsider, it is the enormous gap in the divide that i found interesting, not whether one party or the other is more right.

Personally, I like how Thomas Franks examined it, in What's the Matter With Kansas?  Essentially, the big divide between rural and urban groups is cultural, for a number of reasons (the necessity of cosmopolitanism in urban areas etc).

One of my favourite Lefties, HTML Mencken, also helps explain it a little from a non-wingnut POV, here (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9682.html):

QuoteWhen I hear the phrase "latte-sipping elitist," I think of several things. Culturally, I think of scenesters or scenester wannabes, arbiters of taste, awful people very much on the make, navel-gazing yuppie scum... Fuck it; I could go on and on, but here's a good shorthand: I think of people who write for Gawker. Politically, I think of people in the professions, some of them moving in and out of government, or otherwise involved in policy-making, who are very attuned to and conscientiously follow conventional liberal positions on cultural issues but are clueless — and often more than a little callous — when it comes to class issues. The shorthand here is "Brad DeLong." I myself never use "latte-sipping elitist" but I have and do use "technocrat elitist," in the exact same spirit I recognize in the former phrase, when describing such people who regard their poor countrymen with only a bit more humanity than Trevelyan and Lord John Russell had for the Irish.

...

What I'm saying is that a *lot* of college professors have more in common with the back-room businessman than they do with the underclass. Indeed, a lot of college professors work to ensure (whether they know it or not) that the smoky back-room businessman triumphs. After all, when the businessman (who is too stupid to do it on his own) wants the system that he benefits from defended in Op-Ed pages and sustained by Conventional Opinion, he usually hires someone from Academe.

At any rate, both the businessman and even the best of the college professors fear and loathe the underclass on cultural grounds. Really. Hey, so do I, but that doesn't make it right. And at least I know it's wrong to go from that position to then say "fuck those Kansans," because it's *never* right to abandon poor people — even "culturally primitive" ones.

....

It's not just wingnuts who go around making fun of working class beer, getting all appalled at working class fast food/fried food/southern food/soul food, sneering at or paternalising over working class vices like playing the lottery and smoking cigs and their putting a premium on admittedly pathetic status symbols like cars or clothing. Be honest, how many people do you know who think something nasty (and I admit, funny: I am most emphatically *not* a speech or humor policeman; all I'm after here is some empathy) when they hear of a tornado hitting a trailer park? Be honest. And it's not as if this phenomenon is confined to whites: urban blacks also often have a lot of contempt for their rural (and poorer) counterparts.

I mean, the cultural signifier thing goes both ways. All I'm saying is, the poor aren't wrong to respond to the resentment and in turn, resent. A lot of ppl on this thread are responding as if I'm some troglodyte redneck wanting to hang the professoriat en masse. It's not true. If anything, I share the cultural biases of the upper-middle class. But I also see its faults. The Jesus Freakery, racism, homophobia, etc, etc, that I see in everyday life around here does drive me batty. However, that's not all I see; I also see a shitload of poverty. But urban elitists, I think, tend to only *see* the cultural traits they like, again not unreasonably, to sneer at. The class issue aspect, OTOH, they only see dimly if at all, and then only in the vague "I know it's there in theory" sense. Remember a few weeks ago when the Obama-Appalachia thing came out? Josh Marshall, bless him, diffused a lot of the bullshit with his intial post but still, I could feel and see the knee-jerk response, and most predictable it was: the basic Tom Schaller thesis that means in practice "Fuck the poor white trash; let them have their Jesus and NASCAR." There's an itch, an irresistable itch in a lot of people (cf. Farley's post) to blanketly call a bunch of *poor* people horrible racists. That way it's easier to hate them and pretend that the Left has no responsibility to all poor Americans.

In re: college professors, bear in mind where I live. A common belief is that the most cushy job there is is being a professor/schoolteacher. You can consign that to simple envy and misguided class resentment but consider: most of the superwealthy farmers here are married to teachers. And as for the larger picture, again, from a poor rural person's point of view, what have intellectuals-professors-creative class (ppl need to stop getting hung up on the terminology: everyone knows what I mean) done for them in the last, say, twenty years?

The megarich, no one sees. The creative class/New Class, by its nature, is visible. And again, *a portion* of it is who does the megarich's dirty work. Sure, absolutely there are liberal — even radical — professors. How many of them [I really hate to argue like this but I don't see any other way to drive the point home] are on food stamps? And sure, a lot of them are very moral in the "fight the man" sense, and it's done a lot of good for a lot of people, but in the end, minority/gender/sexual orientation studies only help the poor indirectly in the sense that minorities constititute such a large portion of the poor. Actually, far too much of that stuff is about culture (cf. the Ampersand-Shakesville preoccupation with inspecting art for evidence of some or other form of bigotry) rather than economics. Solve the class issue and you solve probably 90 percent of bigotry issues (the megarich are not actually bigots in any meaningful sense, but they exploit and inculcate bigotry in the lower classes as a way to divide them; please excuse my very old socialist reasoning), but that ain't as much fun as deconstructing Simpsons episodes and James Bond movies to their ideologically satanic roots. Anyway, there is a huge cultural divide and I dunno how to bridge it. I am not saying elitist liberals should pander to something they're uncomfortable with; I am saying that, even so, it would be easier and better for them to attempt to empathise with the poor than expect the poor to empathise with them. But it has to be done somehow. The liberal elite, to its great credit, can empathise with (poor, exploited, and yes often but not always bigoted) Iraqis. So understanding culturally retrograde (to be mean about it) people, and taking responsibility for them, is possible, yet when it comes to understanding (as opposed to demonising) our own poor, exploited, gun nutty, religious, yes, often — but not always — bigoted folks... well, fuck them. So the creative class — the non-wingnutty side of them — is disgusted by the poor on cultural grounds, and can't identify with them on class grounds.

I think that sums up some of the legitimate gripes from the labelling, even if they are only tangenitally related.

Based purely on urban vs rural, yes, it's a HUGE divide. I was distracted by the "intelligence" part of your post.

Growing up in a town brings a completely different worldview than growing up in a city. I grew up in a town. It wasn't until I went off to college and traveled online and overseas that my rural worldview started really changing.

The biggest fear of rural people is to see things happening and being placed upon them as law by the people far away in a city, people who are as far from understanding rural life as they are from understanding city life, and they are powerless to do anything about it. Fear builds anger and lashing out and group think (religious more often than not, but not necessarily so) and ALL these things we associate with The Movement. It also builds contempt.

Of course there is no real end to this. The Movement becomes the primary mover of the nation and....then what? People are still moving to cities, rural towns are still disappearing, population centers are still growing. No matter what happens, they are loosing.

Things are going to get more nasty as time goes on.

People in the city have NO idea how nature works. They have some idealized hippie bullshit idea... Don't even get me started on the northern Ontarian/ Southern Ontarian rift
:argh!:

Quote from: Rumwolf on July 25, 2009, 10:25:25 AM
Dear government,

I am very (tick all that apply):
[] shocked
[] upset
[] angry
[] amused

that you could deceive the American public to such a large extent.
I am of course referring to:
[] the supposed moon landing
[] Obama's nationality
[] the black helicopters you use to spy on us
[] the flouride in the drinking water
[] letting corporations use dihydrogen  monoxide

We of course will not stand for it. be prepared to have every:
[] mother
[] republican
[] god-fearing patriot
[] crazy guy who yells at people on the subway
[] /b/tard

be called to action to bring the truth to the people.
Thus we give you an ultimatum, call a press conference to address the issue, and tell everybody the truth, by next week, or prepare to face:
[] mass protests
[] strikes
[] boycotts
[] a nude march
[] a mass death stare

Do not try to contact us, we will be in touch.

Sincerely,
_____________________________

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

This needs to be PDF'd

Quote from: Kai on July 25, 2009, 04:48:16 PMI grew up in a town.

me too. little village of 6k inhabitants up until 11, medium town of 25k until 17 and then a city of 200k, 20% of which are students.

but I guess it's different in the Netherlands as all of this took place in a radius of 62 miles :)

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 25, 2009, 05:00:59 PMPeople in the city have NO idea how nature works.

could you specify what (kind of) city and what (kind of) nature?

for example everyone that grew up in NL with high school education, city or village, has a basic understanding of irrigation and dykes :-)

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 25, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
People in the city have NO idea how nature works. They have some idealized hippie bullshit idea... Don't even get me started on the northern Ontarian/ Southern Ontarian rift
:argh!:

I spend two fucking years in Hillsboro, Ontario.  This was in the 70s, before it was a bedroom town for Toronto.

I had all the fucking "nature" I could stand.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 05:52:20 PM


could you specify what (kind of) city and what (kind of) nature?

for example everyone that grew up in NL with high school education, city or village, has a basic understanding of irrigation and dykes :-)

rocks, trees, swamps... no irrigation, just rocks, trees, swamps, and mines

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2009, 05:54:42 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 25, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
People in the city have NO idea how nature works. They have some idealized hippie bullshit idea... Don't even get me started on the northern Ontarian/ Southern Ontarian rift
:argh!:

I spend two fucking years in Hillsboro, Ontario.  This was in the 70s, before it was a bedroom town for Toronto.

I had all the fucking "nature" I could stand.

so I guess it would be pointless for me to try to convince you to move to Thunder Bay this winter....
:sad:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 25, 2009, 06:21:48 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 05:52:20 PM


could you specify what (kind of) city and what (kind of) nature?

for example everyone that grew up in NL with high school education, city or village, has a basic understanding of irrigation and dykes :-)

rocks, trees, swamps... no irrigation, just rocks, trees, swamps, and mines

lets put it this way
you ever watch those nature documentaries where they show some lake in Canada, where you see nothing but rocks, trees, water and wildlife... you may see a wooden house on a cliff or something...
that's where I live

Well this summer Im actually in a large mining city (160 thousand people)

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 25, 2009, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2009, 05:54:42 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 25, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
People in the city have NO idea how nature works. They have some idealized hippie bullshit idea... Don't even get me started on the northern Ontarian/ Southern Ontarian rift
:argh!:

I spend two fucking years in Hillsboro, Ontario.  This was in the 70s, before it was a bedroom town for Toronto.

I had all the fucking "nature" I could stand.

so I guess it would be pointless for me to try to convince you to move to Thunder Bay this winter....
:sad:

No, the fucking Inuit would eat me.

TGRR suet bars will keep you going through the cold winters....

Quote from: Iptuous on July 25, 2009, 06:53:30 PM
TGRR suet bars will keep you going through the cold winters....

They're chock full O' HATE^TM!

Ironically it was an half Inuit who taught me how to spear fish

but that is whole other thread jack

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 04:31:27 PM
to be fair when i said "intellectual elite city people", my emphasis was on "city people", it's more like the rural/urban divide (or perhaps what Iptuous says, individual/collective), and "intellectual elite" not really based on intelligence but on the way both parties talk and present themselves, which has not much to do with intelligence and there's enough dumb people in the city too. hm wait this is also wrong, but they arent my words but those in the documentary :)

also, as an outsider, it is the enormous gap in the divide that i found interesting, not whether one party or the other is more right.

As a resident of the dirty south, I'm pretty familiar with the loathing of city folk by rural, well, elitists. There is a perception that city folk have more "book learnin'", but country people have more "common sense" and are morally superior.

They are, of course, willfully ignorant of the fact that crime rates are higher per capita in rural areas than in urban areas.

Also, there's the whole urban = black subtext.

no damnit you're getting it all wrong, everybody!

it's not about whether the city or the countryside is better or not, or whether the one has more common sense and the other has more book learnin and them being morally superior or not.

fuck, haven't we learned ANYTHING on this forum???

THERE'S STUPID PEOPLE EVERYWHERE

EVEN IF THEY HAVE A FUCKING NOBEL PRIZE

jezus fuck it's a good thing the one group isn't massively moving into the other's territory or you'd all be like "here are all these country/city people takin' our jobs and our moneys and being all smelly and disrespectful to our values"

and shit like that, it's the same fucking coin on both sides!

except that, well yeah, I'm a city person, so I prefer to live there and what I saw in that documentary (blatant bigotry and some really weird uninformed ideas) sorta scared me, I wouldnt like to live there I think. but on the other hand, I'm damn sure that city people have equally much and similar faults, especially when you take the general demographic as a whole.

I can tell you a better story, because I know shitfuck about American culture except what I see on video. I talked about how 20% of my city is students, right?
Well, when I was a student it's real easy to get completely immersed in the student life and know nothing else. You are the intellectual elite and sorta look down upon (the frat boys and girls are worst) the native city people, called "stadjers" (which is dialect, kinda like "cituhzens", except it's actual dialect not a slur so we wear it with pride). I never really did that, but the separation was there.
Right now I'm no longer a student, haven't been really, or really felt like one ever since I was about 2 years older than the average graduation age. I'm connecting with these stadjers, hell, I am one and seriously, the student life is a fucking tunnel vision, yeah these people may not have higher education, but that doesn't mean they aren't smart. Fuck if I know anything, there's at least as much asshole students as there are asshole stadjers, same for the stupid, same for the smart.
Oh, right, and it's doing wonders for my networking :-)

Us bush people are coming to get you city slickers when our resources get low!
:argh!:

So keep drinking your cafe lattes and eating your tofu.
Because I like the taste of coffee and vegetarians make for better eating.

As part of the decadent rural intelligensia, I shall make fun of you poor, ignorant and bumbling city dwellers in whatever way I choose, and 000's words of human brotherhood and decency shall not sway me otherwise.

 :lol:

Quote from: Cain on July 25, 2009, 09:44:22 PM
As part of the decadent rural intelligensia, I shall make fun of you poor, ignorant and bumbling city dwellers in whatever way I choose, and 000's words of human brotherhood and decency shall not sway me otherwise.

Fine. If I get to be on your side, I'm okay with that, too.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2009, 05:06:08 PM

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

This needs to be PDF'd

:lol:

Feel free to (I don't have the resources atm, plus I may not be online for a few days), and to change anything to something better.

Is CNN's President a birther?  Or does he simply want the crackpot ratings the stories attract?  I mean, I'm guessing Dobbs and Beck were hired on his watch...

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/cnn-president-brushes-off-criticism-of-lou-dobbs-continued-floating-of-birther-theories/

Birther hilarity from the Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-22-2009/the-born-identity

Start learning why Lou Dobbs is an idiot at 3:40!

(sorry if repost)

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 25, 2009, 07:31:59 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 04:31:27 PM
to be fair when i said "intellectual elite city people", my emphasis was on "city people", it's more like the rural/urban divide (or perhaps what Iptuous says, individual/collective), and "intellectual elite" not really based on intelligence but on the way both parties talk and present themselves, which has not much to do with intelligence and there's enough dumb people in the city too. hm wait this is also wrong, but they arent my words but those in the documentary :)

also, as an outsider, it is the enormous gap in the divide that i found interesting, not whether one party or the other is more right.

As a resident of the dirty south, I'm pretty familiar with the loathing of city folk by rural, well, elitists. There is a perception that city folk have more "book learnin'", but country people have more "common sense" and are morally superior.

They are, of course, willfully ignorant of the fact that crime rates are higher per capita in rural areas than in urban areas.

Also, there's the whole urban = black subtext.

All of the above are true statements.

Also, "country folk" have very little "common sense".  That's why they spend all day smoking a meth pipe.

Quote from: Cainad on July 26, 2009, 06:19:13 PM
Birther hilarity from the Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-22-2009/the-born-identity

Start learning why Lou Dobbs is an idiot at 3:40!

(sorry if repost)

Fucking awesome.

Jon Stewart is the closest thing America has to a journalist.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2009, 06:30:47 PM
[Fucking awesome.

Jon Stewart is the closest thing America has to a journalist.

"horrormirth" its  horrifying  its funny  its true   :horrormirth:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2009, 06:21:27 PM

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 25, 2009, 07:31:59 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 04:31:27 PM
to be fair when i said "intellectual elite city people", my emphasis was on "city people", it's more like the rural/urban divide (or perhaps what Iptuous says, individual/collective), and "intellectual elite" not really based on intelligence but on the way both parties talk and present themselves, which has not much to do with intelligence and there's enough dumb people in the city too. hm wait this is also wrong, but they arent my words but those in the documentary :)

also, as an outsider, it is the enormous gap in the divide that i found interesting, not whether one party or the other is more right.

As a resident of the dirty south, I'm pretty familiar with the loathing of city folk by rural, well, elitists. There is a perception that city folk have more "book learnin'", but country people have more "common sense" and are morally superior.

They are, of course, willfully ignorant of the fact that crime rates are higher per capita in rural areas than in urban areas.

Also, there's the whole urban = black subtext.

All of the above are true statements.

Also, "country folk" have very little "common sense".  That's why they spend all day smoking a meth pipe.

They're also really real environmentalists because they live in the country, you know, where the environment is!

RFD-TV (DirecTV channel 345, Dish Network channel 231) is a good place to get a feel for "country lifestyles and perspectives".   Here you'll learn things from really real environmentalists like how to take full advantage of the serene silence of the country by bombing your neighborhood with bug poison.

THEY CAN TAKE MY LATTE WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, UNCALLOUSED, LILY-WHITE HAND!
   \
(http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/martha-stewart-wagging-finger.jpg)

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/07/crazy-eileen.html

QuoteRemember the loony red-shirted birther who made international news when she hijacked Rep. Mike Castle's town hall meeting? It turns out that she is well-known around Delaware as "Crazy Eileen." Conservative radio host Jared Morris has posted a YouTube clip of her calls.

QuoteIn a call from a January show, on New Year's predictions, the woman discusses aliens, angels and the end of life on Earth, according to an audio clip Morris posted on YouTube this week. In a videotaped introduction, Morris said the woman featured on the YouTube video from the meeting was a regular caller to his program. "I want you guys to know exactly who you were cheering," Morris said in the clip. She repeatedly has called Obama "the antichrist" on the airwaves, and "her phone calls have turned to faxes and threats," according to Morris. "I have actually talked to an angel who came down in human form," she said during the Jan. 1 show. "We will have alien contact in October of this year, in the southwestern USA." One prediction may seem ironic in light of the anger expressed in her diatribe toward Castle: "There will be peace among men and negativity will end," she told Morris.

:lulz:  I hope she gets her own talk show soon.

That is awesome.

I saw this video on Countdown last night this guy from HuffPo put together.  Basically going up to Republican Reps and getting them to go on record about their position of Obama's citizenship.  It's kind of lulzy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32179294 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32179294)

The fringe element of the Republican party is losing more than just any amount of integrity the party may still have after Palin's showcasing of her...particular brand of intelligence and know-how. 

However, it would be nice if the Democrats would be more productive and were less douchebaggy in getting things done when they control 2 branches of government.

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 02:38:22 PM
The fringe element of the Republican party is losing more than just any amount of integrity the party may still have after Palin's showcasing of her...particular brand of intelligence and know-how. 

However, it would be nice if the Democrats would be more productive and were less douchebaggy in getting things done when they control 2 branches of government.

Err, these are the Democrats we're talking about.  :lulz:

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 28, 2009, 03:01:24 PM
Err, these are the Democrats we're talking about.  :lulz:

Birthers are Republitards, no?

And I'm juxtaposing the fact that, sure the damned fringe element has taken over any sanity the Republicans might have had left in their party after Palin's disgraceful and tragically funny showing in the presidential race, but what have Democrats done with this?

Absofuckinglutely nothing, that I can see, other than start a buncha shit they obviously can't finish (satisfactorily).

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 03:06:21 PM
Birthers are Republitards, no?

And I'm juxtaposing the fact that, sure the damned fringe element has taken over any sanity the Republicans might have had left in their party after Palin's disgraceful and tragically funny showing in the presidential race, but what have Democrats done with this?

Absofuckinglutely nothing, that I can see, other than start a buncha shit they obviously can't finish (satisfactorily).

No I meant, why are you expecting them to accomplish anything while controlling two branches of governmnet... they're the democrats, they don't accomplish stuff. They just rescue us every 8 to 12 years from horrible accomplishments, by giving us 4 to 8 years of nothing.

It's like a constitutionally supported vacation.  :lulz:

The Democrats may as well be two parties.

The Blue Dog Centrists (Republicanism, without the overt religious nuttery)
The Progressives (the satan-worshipping baby-eaters)

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 28, 2009, 03:15:18 PM
No I meant, why are you expecting them to accomplish anything while controlling two branches of governmnet... they're the democrats, they don't accomplish stuff. They just rescue us every 8 to 12 years from horrible accomplishments, by giving us 4 to 8 years of nothing.

It's like a constitutionally supported vacation.  :lulz:

Yeah, but there are those of us in the grassroots area who are pissed at their dog and pony show.  That some of us KNEW better and warned them, trudging on through the glittery spectacle and its sham since they couldn't fight for bupkiss while the Republitards held all 3 branches doesn't help much.  I just don't want to keep hearing about how they are "working together" blah blah blah. 

In this the Republicans are spot-on--it's on the Democrats now that Stuart Smalley has finally entered the ring.  And what are they getting done?  Health care fell flat once the Cambridge, MA police strapped it on...not that they didn't deserve to be called stupid for that incident, but it's time to get over it and get back to work, already.

Quote from: Cain on July 28, 2009, 03:18:25 PM
The Democrats may as well be two parties.

The Blue Dog Centrists (Republicanism, without the overt religious nuttery)
The Progressives (the satan-worshipping baby-eaters)

:lulz:  Yes, but neither of them do anything but fail at life, apparently.

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 03:25:12 PM
Yeah, but there are those of us in the grassroots area who are pissed at their dog and pony show.  That some of us KNEW better and warned them, trudging on through the glittery spectacle and its sham since they couldn't fight for bupkiss while the Republitards held all 3 branches doesn't help much.  I just don't want to keep hearing about how they are "working together" blah blah blah. 

In this the Republicans are spot-on--it's on the Democrats now that Stuart Smalley has finally entered the ring.  And what are they getting done?  Health care fell flat once the Cambridge, MA police strapped it on...not that they didn't deserve to be called stupid for that incident, but it's time to get over it and get back to work, already.

:( Hope and Change are powerful motivations... especially after the last eight years... hope for any change was certainly reason enough for Grass Roots to do their best. ;-)

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 28, 2009, 03:30:10 PM

:( Hope and Change are powerful motivations... especially after the last eight years... hope for any change was certainly reason enough for Grass Roots to do their best. ;-)

They're still trying, more's the pity.  I get more and more emails every week to join this focus group or that one--I've done one on education, my husband one on health care.  And in the end, unless some "official-type" person from the government is paying attention, it's a lot of hot-air-talk to me.

But I'm a terminal pessimist these days.

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 03:32:32 PM
They're still trying, more's the pity.  I get more and more emails every week to join this focus group or that one--I've done one on education, my husband one on health care.  And in the end, unless some "official-type" person from the government is paying attention, it's a lot of hot-air-talk to me.

But I'm a terminal pessimist these days.

It's reality... sometimes it has that effect. The Dems are really good at maintaining control and focus over the optimistic... I think that's the only reason they stay in power. They're still the party of the Hippies and Yippies from the 60's, they're anti-war and anti-nuke and pro-helping everyone man! They do for the optimistic, hippie side, what the GOP does for the pessimistic religious side.

I think.

The democrats exist to stop the republicans.
The republicans exist to help you hate the democrats.
Neither one actually makes decisions.

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 03:25:45 PM
:lulz:  Yes, but neither of them do anything but fail at life, apparently.

Well thats because they have different voting priorities.

Look at health care, for example.  The Progressives are all for the Universal Health care scheme....where as the Blue Dogs are nervous, because they get a lot of funding from Big Pharma and the insurance industry, due to their centrist, business friendly policies.

And this happens across the board.  "Centrist" in any political lexicon means "someone wedded to the current status quo" and the status quo is anyone who massively profits from how things are right now.  The Progressives, on the other hand, want to change some things.  Its because they're working from two different political philosophies.  The only thing they have in common is organization and party name, that aside, they can, and do, vote at cross purposes.

And with moderate Republicans fleeing the sinking ship, it will only get worse.

Quote from: Cain on July 28, 2009, 03:39:41 PM
Well thats because they have different voting priorities.

Look at health care, for example.  The Progressives are all for the Universal Health care scheme....where as the Blue Dogs are nervous, because they get a lot of funding from Big Pharma and the insurance industry, due to their centrist, business friendly policies.

And this happens across the board. "Centrist" in any political lexicon means "someone wedded to the current status quo" and the status quo is anyone who massively profits from how things are right now.  The Progressives, on the other hand, want to change some things.  Its because they're working from two different political philosophies.  The only thing they have in common is organization and party name, that aside, they can, and do, vote at cross purposes.

And with moderate Republicans fleeing the sinking ship, it will only get worse.

You are so right about that--169%

And supposedly, those same moderate Republicans are supposed to be fleeing to the Democratic party, shoring up what's to be considered the "right and proper" course for the US...I don't see anything even close to that happening.  I think they're actually waiting for the fringe element on the Right to topple the thing over, and if that happens, it flips on its belly, and the moderates can ride it out in the sunset.

Not that I think anything that neat would happen, really.  We're just going to get warmed-over regrets and half-empty promises, from what I can tell from this last 6 mos.

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 28, 2009, 03:35:20 PM
It's reality... sometimes it has that effect. The Dems are really good at maintaining control and focus over the optimistic... I think that's the only reason they stay in power. They're still the party of the Hippies and Yippies from the 60's, they're anti-war and anti-nuke and pro-helping everyone man! They do for the optimistic, hippie side, what the GOP does for the pessimistic religious side.

I think.

Good analogy, actually.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2009, 03:37:48 PM
The democrats exist to stop the republicans.
The republicans exist to help you hate the democrats.
Neither one actually makes decisions.

I actually can't stand Republicans aside from what the Democrats do, but I know what you mean.

Neither one actually does anything WORTH anything of note, lately, but the Republicans did get a lot accomplished through Dick Cheney and his Boy Wonder.

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 03:06:21 PM
Birthers are Republitards, no?

And I'm juxtaposing the fact that, sure the damned fringe element has taken over any sanity the Republicans might have had left in their party after Palin's disgraceful and tragically funny showing in the presidential race, but what have Democrats done with this?

Hey, crazy people deserve representation too!!!

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 28, 2009, 05:56:42 PM

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2009, 03:06:21 PM
Birthers are Republitards, no?

And I'm juxtaposing the fact that, sure the damned fringe element has taken over any sanity the Republicans might have had left in their party after Palin's disgraceful and tragically funny showing in the presidential race, but what have Democrats done with this?

Hey, crazy people deserve representation too!!!

:lol:  Well, there's crazy and then there's...certifiable and pathological.

:tinfoilhat: i went to http://urbandictionary.com to get a definition of "Birthers" and it's the TOP definition on the page.

brick hath been shat

And then below it is "weenis"...I think it fitting.  Also, the sample sentence is :lol:-worthy

two nails in the coffin of the Birther movement, brought to you by Jon and Stephen:


The Born Identity (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-22-2009/the-born-identity)

Womb Raiders (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/229691/july-28-2009/womb-raiders---orly-taitz)


Every birther should be required to watch these.
I wish the "Barack is a Muslim" crowd was still getting this kind of attention. It's a riot!

Quote from: Cramulus on July 29, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
I wish the "Barack is a Muslim" crowd was still getting this kind of attention. It's a riot!

I'm not sure. I mean, the worst that will happen is that some time within the next few months GOP will finally be forced to repudiate the birther claims openly. Then these people will just fade back into the crowd, reclaim their anonymity, and get on with their lives. It's not a real debate, and as such they don't care if we can demonstrate the lunacy of their position. Every minute of the news-cycle which isn't devoted to Healthcare right now is a win for the GOP, ever since Obama pinned his credibility to passing that legislation.

Well, fp, if that's correct, then Obama's already passed the torch on to the Congress and left the ball in their court.  He gave them a list of what he wanted, and he's not getting the main thing:  government-sponsored health care.  The Democrats in Congress have screwed the pooch and compromised on that, in the name of "collaboration"--which is bullshit, of course.

I just saw this and it confuses me further: Michael Steele blasts Birtherism as "Unnecessary Distraction" (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/exclusive-michael-steele-blasts-birtherism-as-unnecessary-distraction-says-obama-is-us-citizen/).

Michael Steele only thinks he is in charge of the GOP.

They'll keep talking about it until Rush Limbaugh says not to.

Orly's on NPR, and she's batshit nuts.

Liar

NPR is talking about North Korea.

Apart from nukes, there is no functional difference between the two.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 29, 2009, 05:45:42 PM
Liar

NPR is talking about North Korea.

I live in the past, via podcast.

Quote from: Cain on July 29, 2009, 05:42:44 PM
Michael Steele only thinks he is in charge of the GOP.

They'll keep talking about it until Rush Limbaugh says not to.

I fully expect Michael Steele to go on some radio show, maybe even Rush's, and walk that statement back somehow.  I've yet see him take any kind of stand against the wackos and not end up apologizing for it.  

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 29, 2009, 05:51:17 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 29, 2009, 05:42:44 PM
Michael Steele only thinks he is in charge of the GOP.

They'll keep talking about it until Rush Limbaugh says not to.

I fully expect Michael Steele to go on some radio show, maybe even Rush's, and walk that statement back somehow.  I've yet see him take any kind of stand against the wackos and not end up apologizing for it.  

I have sockpuppets on RedState.com who have more influence over the party than Steele.  He is utterly hopeless.

Quote from: Cain on July 29, 2009, 05:55:16 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 29, 2009, 05:51:17 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 29, 2009, 05:42:44 PM
Michael Steele only thinks he is in charge of the GOP.

They'll keep talking about it until Rush Limbaugh says not to.

I fully expect Michael Steele to go on some radio show, maybe even Rush's, and walk that statement back somehow.  I've yet see him take any kind of stand against the wackos and not end up apologizing for it.  

I have sockpuppets on RedState.com who have more influence over the party than Steele.  He is utterly hopeless.

:lulz:



Also, the fact that Orly's name is "ORLY?" and the fact that she looks like a living, breathing RealDoll makes me think that she is actually an elaborate hoax. As in, she herself is an android.

(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/29/128908056339931356.jpg)

A RealDoll?


For fuck's sake, I hope not.  Those, at least, attempt to conform to some male idea of attractiveness.

She looks sorta tranny-ish.  Watched the interview last night with Colbert and Orly--I think she knew he was mocking her in some way but in order to mete out her attention-whore-moment she just ploughed on through it.

Fucking bimbo.

I also like how he had another fucking bimbo on right after her:  Ariana Huffington.

I would love if Huffington and Orly got into a debate, just to see the closed-captioning people lose their fucking minds.

She looks like a reploid.   :lulz:

The conspiracy has now gone meta!!!  :tinfoilhat::hi5::tinfoilhat:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/when-conspiracy-theory-becomes-conspiracy-theory

QuoteIs this anything but a gift to the Democrats?

Am I the only one to notice that mainstream media attention to the "Birthers" has picked up in recent weeks -- and that this increased attention is coincident to the turn in Obama's approval ratings?

A search of The Washington Post web site, for instance, on the term "Birther" yields as its oldest hit this one from July 6; a search of The New York Times, though, shows one June reference in passing and then the first real mention of the term on July 22.

Far be it from me to assume one is the cause of the other -- as faithful readers know, I do my best to avoid falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap -- but, still, it is an interesting coincidence.

Coincident or not, it is eating up valuable air time and gobbling up precious inches of type that could, and should, be devoted to other, more pressing, matters -- like the self-immolation of the Democratic Party, as it struggles to find a way to reform the health care delivery system without destroying it.

Reasonable and responsible conservatives, thus, are stuck. We are being lumped in with irresponsible and unreasonable conspiracy theorists.

QuoteGoldberg: I have a theory. And the theory is this: That the Chicago Mafia inside the White House want to keep this crazy controversy going. Because the longer it goes, the better the chance that they will conflate the crazy right-wing fringe with regular conservatives and regular Republicans.

O'Reilly: That's not a bad theory.

I've also heard that the conspiracy theory is being spread by Republican operatives so that those who don't buy into it can sat "well, I wasn't a Birther but [even more crazy conspiracy theory] and since you know I'm not a nut, it seems kinda plausible, right?"

I kinda want to start one that the birther movement is being run by  reptoids to make republicans irrelevant.  so that without a common enemy to face the dems will tear themselves apart.

They should call themselves "Crackers", because Obama, as a reptilian agent, was not birthed, but cracked free of a giant egg, in his home plane of the fourth dimension.

Quote from: Cain on July 30, 2009, 07:38:38 PM
They should call themselves "Crackers", because Obama, as a reptilian agent, was not birthed, but cracked free of a giant egg, in his home plane of the fourth dimension.

:lulz:  :potd:  :mittens:

Oh for crapping out loud.

(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/birthers.png)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019306.php (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019306.php)

Yes, this is what I have to put up with down here.  :argh!:

:lulz:  Well, there's a REASON why people believe as they do about the Southern states...sorry, Ippy.

Quote from: Kai on July 31, 2009, 05:48:55 PM
Yes, this is what I have to put up with down here.  :argh!:

You and me both, Kai.

I don't think it's quite that bad here in Tennessee, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see a state-by-state breakdown.

I guarantee you that SC is one of the worst.

Quote from: Kai on July 31, 2009, 06:02:08 PM
I guarantee you that SC is one of the worst.

How is life in places like that? Do you have to put up with a general undercurrent of intolerance, or can you successfully form informal communities of friends and like-minded acquaintances to avoid the most of it?

Apparently I live in "One of the most multicultural cities in the world" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto). I don't think about it that much, but definitely if I hear a homophobic or racist comment then it's a topic of incredulous discussion - like the reaction I got from telling a member of the armed forces that I thought the snow looked pretty one day.

It gets worse.

http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america

QuoteBut how many Southern whites aren't sure whether the president has lied about his citizenship? The "South" defined by the poll includes 30 percent of the country's population, in twelve states: Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. That's around 99.2 million people, of whom 61.3 million are non-Hispanic whites, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the exit polls in those 12 states, 30.6 percent of the voters in this region who cast ballots in 2008 were black, Hispanic or members of another minority group.

According to Del Ali of Research 2000, if you excluded those people from the poll—if you look only at white voters in the South—the number of people who doubt Obama's citizenship is  higher than the 47 percent figure that has grabbed headlines today. "There was no deviation in the number of black, Hispanic, and other voters from one region of the country to another," Ali told TWI. In the South, like everywhere else, the vast majority of non-white voters said that Obama was born in the United States; 97 percent of black voters, 87 percent of Hispanic voters, and 88 percent of other minorities. The extremely low overall percentage? That's due to white Southerners, who dragged down the average with an extremely high level of doubt about Obama.

So what proportion of Southern whites doubt that Obama is an American citizen? While Ali did not release the racial breakdowns for the the South, and cautioned that the margin of error in the smaller sample of 720 people would be larger than the national margin of error (2 percent), the proportion of white Southern voters with doubts about their president's citizenship may be higher than 70 percent. More than 30 percent of the people polled in the South were non-white, and very few of them told pollsters that they had questions about Obama's citizenship. In order for white voters to drive the South's "don't know" number to 30 percent and it's "born outside the United States" number to 23 percent, as many as three-quarters of Southern whites told pollsters that they didn't know where Obama was born.

:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

I wish I could say that it surprised me but I've always known that three-quarters of all Southerns were retards. Lincoln shouldn't have put up such a big fight when they wanted to leave the Union.

What I don't understand about the civil war is how the richest 3% slave-owning southerners convinced all those poor non-slave-owning southerners to fight a war to protect their rights to own slaves.

Were they really that stupid?

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on August 01, 2009, 08:18:08 PM
What I don't understand about the civil war is how the richest 3% slave-owning southerners convinced all those poor non-slave-owning southerners to fight a war to protect their rights to own slaves.

Were they really that stupid?

Wasn't it an easy sell though? Something like: "We don't want no fancy talkin' government bureaucrat from the big city, tellin' us how we should live our lives and meddlin' in our affairs, orderin' us about and usin' confusin' words."

Does the exact same tired strategy work today? You betcha!

Well the richest 5% convinced all the poor southerners that they don't want healthcare for the poor... so yes.

We have a strong "work hard, die poor" work ethic.

God loves poor people moar, y'know.

Also, it builds "character".

Quote from: fictionpuss on July 31, 2009, 06:14:33 PM

Quote from: Kai on July 31, 2009, 06:02:08 PM
I guarantee you that SC is one of the worst.

How is life in places like that? Do you have to put up with a general undercurrent of intolerance, or can you successfully form informal communities of friends and like-minded acquaintances to avoid the most of it?

Apparently I live in "One of the most multicultural cities in the world" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto). I don't think about it that much, but definitely if I hear a homophobic or racist comment then it's a topic of incredulous discussion - like the reaction I got from telling a member of the armed forces that I thought the snow looked pretty one day.

Life in places like this varies, depending on your location. In the college town where I live it's bearable. You have to deal with intolerance outside of the university, but within it's not so bad. People do form communities of like minded friends (or the loca Unitarian Universalist Fellowship wouldn't exist).

Toronto is where I want to live someday. I've been there twice on extended visits and my experiences have been /wonderful/.

Quote from: Kai on August 01, 2009, 10:31:57 PM
Life in places like this varies, depending on your location. In the college town where I live it's bearable. You have to deal with intolerance outside of the university, but within it's not so bad. People do form communities of like minded friends (or the loca Unitarian Universalist Fellowship wouldn't exist).

Toronto is where I want to live someday. I've been there twice on extended visits and my experiences have been /wonderful/.

Yeah, here the haters aren't tolerated and I guess they exist in their own personal cliques, but they don't seem to organise and as such, sexual or racial intolerance is more of an abstract issue for me. Mind you, I think this changes the further away from downtown you get, and there are university and college campuses dotted all around the downtown core, so perhaps it is just a bit like a large college town?

Also, Torontonians are quite smug about being multicultural and will pat themselves on the back quite frequently.. but if that meme is partly to blame, then that's a small price to pay ;-)

In any large college town, racial, sexual/gender and class distinctions will always melt before the one big conflict:  that between students and locals.  Nothing else matters.

I don't think most of these people believe he isn't American.

I think they just feel obligated as republicans to not be able to disagree with a bad thing said about a democrat.

The reverse is often true, as well.  The American people have been divided, just as planned.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2009, 06:51:34 PM
I don't think most of these people believe he isn't American.

I think they just feel obligated as republicans to not be able to disagree with a bad thing said about a democrat.

The reverse is often true, as well.  The American people have been divided, just as planned.

Ed Brayton was making this point on his radio show last week. There are no solid independent voices anymore which really fucks things up for everyone. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Obama but no one is taking up them up. Democrats are too busy toeing the line and Republicans can't say anything because it is the same shit Bush was doing. That's why they come up with stupid shit like the Birthers and the Tea Baggers and "ZOMG!! Obama wants to kill grandma!!1!"

 :news:

Someone with a really old typewriter connections inside the Kenyan government has discovered Obama's really real birth certificate!!!


http://www.infowars.com/shocking-new-birth-certificate-proof-obama-born-in-kenya/

(http://prisonplanet.com/images/august2009/020809doc1a.jpg)

I wonder how many birthers are going to claim the document isn't real because it doesn't have the name of the doctor on it?

oh wait... they are birthers.

Quotethe alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.

its a certified copy without the doctors signature!! oh noes its a conspiracy i demand they show me the original,

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2009, 06:51:34 PM
I don't think most of these people believe he isn't American.

I think they just feel obligated as republicans to not be able to disagree with a bad thing said about a democrat.

The reverse is often true, as well.  The American people have been divided, just as planned.

Bingo! 

Quote from: From the Piece of  Shite ArticleDespite the fact that a hoax document similar in nature circulated the Internet last week, World Net Daily reports that the new document "bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax".

The birth certificate was released by an anonymous source who did not want to be named because he fears for his life.

:lulz:  Uh huh.  I see some bridge-sellin' over here...

Quote from: Jenne on August 03, 2009, 08:46:12 PM

Quote from: From the Piece of  Shite ArticleDespite the fact that a hoax document similar in nature circulated the Internet last week, World Net Daily reports that the new document "bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax".

The birth certificate was released by an anonymous source who did not want to be named because he fears for his life.

:lulz:  Uh huh.  I see some bridge-sellin' over here...

I'm just sad that we didn't think of it first.   Also notice that they have their rationalizations already figured out when the courts toss them out on their asses yet again:

QuoteObviously the more likely scenario will be that the court will be strong armed into dismissing the document as a counterfeit by the powers that be.

We need to leak more fake Obama birth certificates, proving that he was born in Cuba, the USSR, and Nazi Germany AT THE SAME TIME!

Notice at the very bottom where it says Republic of Kenya?  Kenya didn't become a republic until 10 months after Obama was born.   :lulz: 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908030001

FAIL!

They had some wishful thinking back in the 60's!

THOSE DAMNED HIPPIE KENYANS!

Other obvious clues that it's a fake:

http://washingtonindependent.com/53494/birthers-latch-onto-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate

Quote- Its publication date is February 17, 1964, but it purports be a document of the "Republic of Kenya." Kenya did not become a Republic until December 12, 1964, a year after it won independence from Great Britain.

- It's signed by "registrar E.F. Lavender." Earth Friendly Lavender is a kind of detergent, and government officials who use vanity initials on official documents are, to put it mildly, rare.

- The kicker? The image is part of the extremely ill-informed conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Mombasa—conveniently, one of the more Muslim parts of the country.

This has always been a red flag for conspiracy theorists, so it deserves some explanation. Barack Obama Sr. was born and educated in Nyanza Province, in southwestern Kenya, on Lake Victoria. This is the area where Obama's family lived and continues to live; Sarah Obama, the step-grandmother of the president, lives in Nyang'oma Kogelo, a small town in the province. But Mombasa is a city on the Indian Ocean, a thousand miles to the east. It didn't even have an international airport until 1979. And the city wasn't even part of Kenya when the future president was born. Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar until December 12, 1963, when it became part of the newly independent Kenya.

The new forgery? Why, it claims that the president was born in Coast General Hospital in Mombasa.

- As some FreeRepublic posters have pointed out, the document contains a number that's either a humorous coincidence or a wink by the forger. It's number 47,044. Barack Obama, 47 years old, is the 44th president of the United States.

The Birthers got pwned.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 04, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
The Birthers got pwned.

:| Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I'm beginning to think that everyone who thought twice about the issue, giving it more time than it deserved, got pwned. There are no "Birthers" - they'll just go straight back to anonymity and the real intelligence behind this all will have got what it wanted - disruptive control of the news cycle and thus the legislative agenda. Think this was planted by people from the Left? Looks more like a self-destruct device to me before it starts doing real, not meta-political, damage to the GOP.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 04, 2009, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 04, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
The Birthers got pwned.

:| Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I'm beginning to think that everyone who thought twice about the issue, giving it more time than it deserved, got pwned. There are no "Birthers" - they'll just go straight back to anonymity and the real intelligence behind this all will have got what it wanted - disruptive control of the news cycle and thus the legislative agenda. Think this was planted by people from the Left? Looks more like a self-destruct device to me before it starts doing real, not meta-political, damage to the GOP.

Go away. The rest of us are enjoying laughing at the stupid apes.

obviously, Birthers are the new Flat-Earthers.

I think they're just pulled from the same pool of idjits, really.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 04, 2009, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 04, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
The Birthers got pwned.

There are no "Birthers"

Even the most cursory glance at many right-wing online communities will prove this to be laughably false.

Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2009, 07:03:48 AM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 04, 2009, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 04, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
The Birthers got pwned.

There are no "Birthers"

Even the most cursory glance at many right-wing online communities will prove this to be laughably false.

Care to address what I said in the context I said it, or are you just joining in the fun?

Because if you wish to discuss it seriously, then I'd be happy to explain what I meant if it's not clear.

What substance?  You have wild conjecture and no evidence.  There is nothing to discuss, so I am going to poke you with sticks, which is more than you deserve.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 04, 2009, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 04, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
The Birthers got pwned.

There are no "Birthers"

I refute thusly:

Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 03:31:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Quote from: LMNO on August 05, 2009, 01:13:09 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 04, 2009, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 04, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
The Birthers got pwned.

There are no "Birthers"

I refute thusly:

Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 03:31:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

Look. I wasn't trying to say that there are no people that consider themselves "Birthers" today. Or tomorrow. But that by next year they'll likely have ceased to exist almost entirely. They are a transitory political group mixing grassroots with media-led astroturf. It's not like talking about an actual demographic, or an issue based group who are established. I could become a "Birther" if I wished, and there'd be almost no risk or cost to doing so, because I'd cease to be one simply as soon as I just stopped talking about it.

Taking from other similar examples such as the "teabaggers" - you can have fun and fling shit at them if you want, but in the end the group dissolves and the shit sticks to no-one.

You can take any four words out of context and make fun if you wish. But you're only proving something to yourself.

:news:

Descriptive nouns are transitory.


FILM AT ELEVEN!

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 02:04:42 PM
Look. I wasn't trying to say that there are no people that consider themselves "Birthers" today. Or tomorrow. But that by next year they'll likely have ceased to exist almost entirely. They are a transitory political group mixing grassroots with media-led astroturf. It's not like talking about an actual demographic, or an issue based group who are established. I could become a "Birther" if I wished, and there'd be almost no risk or cost to doing so, because I'd cease to be one simply as soon as I just stopped talking about it.

Taking from other similar examples such as the "teabaggers" - you can have fun and fling shit at them if you want, but in the end the group dissolves and the shit sticks to no-one.

You can take any four words out of context and make fun if you wish. But you're only proving something to yourself.

Oh please, there are still "truthers" running around screaming and hollering about how 9/11 was an inside job, and prominent ones like Jesse Ventura.  They never went away.  And you are seriously deluding yourself or seriously out of touch if you think these "Birther" jackasses are going to go away so long as Obama is in the White House.  "Birther"-ism, is essentially a proxy movement for racism.  I would also suggest that a significant portion of the Tea Baggers would also fall into that category.

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers haven't gone away or dissolved.  They are now being bused around by the Republicans and the Health Insurance Industry to disrupt local town hall meetings.  They are being given times and locations and scripts to make sure that any meaningful dialogue on health care reform doesn't happen.  

There is nothing transitory about it.  There are a group of right-wing degenerate asshats who simply cannot reconcile the fact that we have a President who has a skin color that is unlike those of the previous 43 Presidents.  They will not cease their efforts to undermine him until he is out of office.  

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2009, 02:12:59 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 02:04:42 PM
Look. I wasn't trying to say that there are no people that consider themselves "Birthers" today. Or tomorrow. But that by next year they'll likely have ceased to exist almost entirely. They are a transitory political group mixing grassroots with media-led astroturf. It's not like talking about an actual demographic, or an issue based group who are established. I could become a "Birther" if I wished, and there'd be almost no risk or cost to doing so, because I'd cease to be one simply as soon as I just stopped talking about it.

Taking from other similar examples such as the "teabaggers" - you can have fun and fling shit at them if you want, but in the end the group dissolves and the shit sticks to no-one.

You can take any four words out of context and make fun if you wish. But you're only proving something to yourself.

Oh please, there are still "truthers" running around screaming and hollering about how 9/11 was an inside job, and prominent ones like Jesse Ventura.  They never went away.  And you are seriously deluding yourself or seriously out of touch if you think these "Birther" jackasses are going to go away so long as Obama is in the White House.  "Birther"-ism, is essentially a proxy movement for racism.  I would also suggest that a significant portion of the Tea Baggers would also fall into that category.

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers haven't gone away or dissolved.  They are now being bused around by the Republicans and the Health Insurance Industry to disrupt local town hall meetings.  They are being given times and locations and scripts to make sure that any meaningful dialogue on health care reform doesn't happen.  

There is nothing transitory about it.  There are a group of right-wing degenerate asshats who simply cannot reconcile the fact that we have a President who has a skin color that is unlike those of the previous 43 Presidents.  They will not cease their efforts to undermine him until he is out of office.  

Absolutely. I agree completely.

Some of them even are probably the fucktards in Florida that Rove bused in for the "Stop the Count" demonstrations for the 2000 US election. If you just attack the transitory labels like "teabagger" and "birther", it seems that you play right into their game though because they'll just pretend to be another grassroots movement next month, wear another hat, and repeat the pattern.

Meanwhile, some deluded folks likely remain in their wake who believe the lie completely and prevent the movement from absolute implosion.. but once the movement loses political punch, the folks who are more aware of the real agenda don't waste their time any longer.

To clarify, the noun is transitory, the mindstate is not.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 02:30:44 PM
Absolutely. I agree completely.

Some of them even are probably the fucktards in Florida that Rove bused in for the "Stop the Count" demonstrations for the 2000 US election. If you just attack the transitory labels like "teabagger" and "birther", it seems that you play right into their game though because they'll just pretend to be another grassroots movement next month, wear another hat, and repeat the pattern.

Gee, you think maybe the fact that I just explained that means that I'm fully aware of that?  Do you think we are all idiots? 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2009, 02:36:38 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 02:30:44 PM
Absolutely. I agree completely.

Some of them even are probably the fucktards in Florida that Rove bused in for the "Stop the Count" demonstrations for the 2000 US election. If you just attack the transitory labels like "teabagger" and "birther", it seems that you play right into their game though because they'll just pretend to be another grassroots movement next month, wear another hat, and repeat the pattern.

Gee, you think maybe the fact that I just explained that means that I'm fully aware of that?  Do you think we are all idiots? 

Four words of mine were just used to strawman me into an argument I didn't make. If we're on the same page - great. I'm not calling anyone an idiot.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 02:44:17 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2009, 02:36:38 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 02:30:44 PM
Absolutely. I agree completely.

Some of them even are probably the fucktards in Florida that Rove bused in for the "Stop the Count" demonstrations for the 2000 US election. If you just attack the transitory labels like "teabagger" and "birther", it seems that you play right into their game though because they'll just pretend to be another grassroots movement next month, wear another hat, and repeat the pattern.

Gee, you think maybe the fact that I just explained that means that I'm fully aware of that?  Do you think we are all idiots? 

Four words of mine were just used to strawman me into an argument I didn't make. If we're on the same page - great. I'm not calling anyone an idiot.

Well, no, you actually kind of did make that argument.  In the post from which Cain quoted, you said they would go back into anonymity.  Going into anonymity is not exactly the same thing as morphing into something different.  I am arguing that they actually won't go back into anonymity because their movement is based upon bigoted hatred of President Obama.  As long as he is President, there will be "Birthers".  Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers are the ones morphing into astroturfed "grassroots" movements to wreak havoc in Town Hall meetings on health care reform. 

It may be you thought in your head that is what you were arguing initially, but you really weren't.  I think perhaps you need to work on your writing skills. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2009, 02:57:41 PM
Well, no, you actually kind of did make that argument.  In the post from which Cain quoted, you said they would go back into anonymity.  Going into anonymity is not exactly the same thing as morphing into something different.  I am arguing that they actually won't go back into anonymity because their movement is based upon bigoted hatred of President Obama.  As long as he is President, there will be "Birthers".  Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers are the ones morphing into astroturfed "grassroots" movements to wreak havoc in Town Hall meetings on health care reform. 

It may be you thought in your head that is what you were arguing initially, but you really weren't.  I think perhaps you need to work on your writing skills. 

From a functional perspective, they may as well be anonymous since they take new labels at will. So I feel that you may be a touch pedantic here, but I agree entirely on your point about my writing skills.

Taking new labels at will =/= anonymous.  You're doing that thing you always do, where you make up meanings for words which already have well known, pre-existing meanings, which don't match with yours

Speaking of the Teabaggers and Health Insurance, just to back up RWHN's point:

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8583/tbaggers.jpg)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/tea-party-crowd-crashes-steny-hoyer-event.php?ref=fpblg

No, Sherlock (addressing fictionpuss), you are conflating the "Birthers" with the "Tea Baggers".  The tea baggers are morphing from taxes to health care.  The Birthers are pretty focused on the birth certificate "issue".  There is no morphing going on with them.  

Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2009, 04:05:59 PM
Taking new labels at will =/= anonymous.  You're doing that thing you always do, where you make up meanings for words which already have well known, pre-existing meanings, which don't match with yours

Okay. I'll grant that I have a problem with communication. But do you understand the point I was trying to make or are you just being pedantic?

Dear LMNO,

Please stop teaching fictionpuss new words.

Thanks in advance,
RWHN and probably everybody else. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2009, 04:24:02 PM
Dear LMNO,

Please stop teaching fictionpuss new words.

Thanks in advance,
RWHN and probably everybody else. 

Ah, you noticed that? If I get completely shat upon for being harmlessly pedantic, you can bet I'll be pointing out other examples when I see them. It's a basic rule of monkey-dynamics.

I don't have to put up silently with double-standards. So I won't. Other than running the risk of being called a "whiny little prick" a few more times, why should I put up with it?

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2009, 04:24:02 PM
Dear LMNO,

Please stop teaching fictionpuss new words.

Thanks in advance,
RWHN and probably everybody else. 

PedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
PedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
Pedantic
Pedantic
PedanticPedantic
PedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
Pedantic
PedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
PedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
PedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
Pedantic
Pedantic
PedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedanticPedantic
Pedantic
Pedantic





Pedantic

















Don't be!

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 05, 2009, 04:21:39 PM

Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2009, 04:05:59 PM
Taking new labels at will =/= anonymous.  You're doing that thing you always do, where you make up meanings for words which already have well known, pre-existing meanings, which don't match with yours

Okay. I'll grant that I have a problem with communication. But do you understand the point I was trying to make or are you just being pedantic?

No.  Because you do this thing where you make up meanings for words which already have well known, pre-existing meanings, which don't match yours.

Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2009, 04:45:04 PM
No.  Because you do this thing where you make up meanings for words which already have well known, pre-existing meanings, which don't match yours.

what are you flying about?  his choice of rivets is perfectly clear to me, and any creative use of them is simply the hallmark of a sueded mind.

Quote from: Iptuous on August 05, 2009, 05:02:05 PM

Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2009, 04:45:04 PM
No.  Because you do this thing where you make up meanings for words which already have well known, pre-existing meanings, which don't match yours.

what are you flying about?  his choice of rivets is perfectly clear to me, and any creative use of them is simply the hallmark of a sueded mind.

My thoughts exactly. Sheesh!

Iptuous speaks vast puddles of concrete artichokes.

WOW!
It's like everything he runs makes total earplugs and teapots!

Obama is the only real Birther.  It is all a sinister Muslim Marxist liberal plot to make conservatives look like conspiratorial extremists!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGZiYmQyODZiMzFkNTdhMzBiYTVmOTFjODg2YjZlMzQ=

That was a whole lots of words just to say, "NO U!!!!"

Assuming you've read Sadly, No! today, you'll notice Ann Coulter is saying the same thing.

Yep, saw it. Looks like they've got their marching orders from above to try to discredit it the Birthers since it is ruining the GOP's image. Well, ruining it even more than it already was. Seems rather odd to fight a conspiracy with an even bigger counter-conspiracy.

Its the GOP Way.

why limit that assessment to the GOP?  it seems that any power structure with half a brain could see the advantage in undermining the loose cannons or embarrassing uncles in their ranks by poisoning the well of their less than desirable activities/arguments...
it just happens that the GOP is the group currently grasping at straws, with the less savvy among them making facepalm inducing claims.

It doesn't just happen.  They have an internal motor that seems to drive and thrive on this phenomenon, Ippy.  Time and again.  They  make it alllll too easy to mock them.  If they really want to look credible, at all, they need to shut up their more popular wingnuts, like Rush and Michael Medved.

(http://mysticwicks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=86234&d=1249864378)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 10, 2009, 05:01:26 AM
(http://mysticwicks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=86234&d=1249864378)

MW links no worky for me!  :(

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 24, 2009, 03:31:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ2i9cEtZ60

Sadism bump.

(http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/meh-vflQF1ybI.png)
This video is no longer available because
the YouTube account associated with this
video has been terminated.
Sorry about that.

Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 10, 2011, 10:25:56 PM
(http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/meh-vflQF1ybI.png)
This video is no longer available because
the YouTube account associated with this
video has been terminated.
Sorry about that.

:crankey:

You win this round.

But I'll be back.