Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the thing that gets us independents pissed, and what I think club was referring to, is that when a racist pops up, his action is sometimes attributed to people that have not business being tied to the statement-

remember when GGG said "mccain staffers were selling obama as some stereotype buttons?"

or even my sweet RT today, stretching the actions of anti-black crazed to Rs generally.

it's not different in substance from when Rs try to tag main stream Ds with the dailykos/DU/GGG fringe, is it?

I've already said my bit about the racial views of the Tea Partiers, and if I recall correctly I was what would usually be perceived as to the right of you, but I think what Brooks said was pretty awful, and not at all hard to understand.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm not sure if this Brooks guy is a closet klan guy or what, and maybe what he said is improper[/i]

Would Brooks be asking whether a white 49 year old ivy league-educated president valued "order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility"? Perhaps, but I doubt it.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's hard for me to believe that someone who can make a living as a lawyer can barely comprehend what Brooks was trying to say. He writes in English. It's not rocket science. Try to imagine a New York Times columnist saying this:

Culturally, George W. Bush will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

or this:

Culturally, Bill Clinton will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

Never in a million years would Brooks say that about a white President.

Something you apparently share with most conservatives is that you are far more bothered by the notion that someone might be accused of racism than you seem to be the suggestion of actual racism. If you actually could give a shit for a second about the offensive shit in Brooks' column, it would be a little easier to be sympathetic to your outrage at the horrible injustices done to the Tea Party movement. (And I say this as someone who has been more sympathetic here to that outrage than most.) But, as you say, you don't give two shits about it.

I just went back and re-read the quote, which, I note is not given in context (not that it necessarily would change the meaning, but I think that is part of why I have trouble understanding it). What I didn't get on first read is "unusual background" equates to race. I actually would not have gotten that on the second read were it not for the posts here. I guess I just don't think along those lines.

But really, that wasn't my beef. My beef was how Brooks' writing was attributed to a large portion of the population/entire political ideology. And I find it hard that a board filled with lawyers have trouble understanding that.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

You know this is non-responsive, right?


You are teetering on brooks territory now.

This is too much. Now I'm borderline racist for calling the administration incompetent. You really do have a low IQ.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

Bigotry totally isn't an issue today.

Putting aside its motivation, do you disagree with the Bill?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do you know any big shot law firm partner, much less leader of the free world, who isn't chronically tardy?

It isn't third grade spelling.

I don't normally agree with you, but in this case I will make an exception. 2.

eg, I'm always l8. Hi Weed!

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

or this:

Culturally, Bill Clinton will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

Never in a million years would Brooks say that about a white President.

When I reflect on Clinton's background and history, even before the Lewinsky incident, while I might agree that Brooks and the rest of the MSM might not have said the above about him, I do think that they could have in 1994, and it would have been an accurate reflection and not racist, unless of course we buy into the notion that Clinton was our first black president......

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This is too much. Now I'm borderline racist for calling the administration incompetent. You really do have a low IQ.

Ask yourself why you think it has been incompetent. Because that can't possibly be an unbiased assessment.

You can disagree with what they have tried to accomplish, and you can question their willingness to compromise, but they have been extraordinarily successful in achieving their goals, and enacting their campaign agenda.

That you can label that "incompetent" is rather amazing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Putting aside its motivation, do you disagree with the Bill?

Yes. It is silly and stupid. Leaving aside the non-existent fear that courts will magically start citing Sharia as precedent, I so no reason to ban courts from considering whatever persuasive authority is out there, not least because of the complexity brought by ever increasing globalization that just might make convergence among similar legal systems highly efficient.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

Ask yourself why you think it has been incompetent. Because that can't possibly be an unbiased assessment.

You can disagree with what they have tried to accomplish, and you can question their willingness to compromise, but they have been extraordinarily successful in achieving their goals, and enacting their campaign agenda.

That you can label that "incompetent" is rather amazing.

Based on recent polling, their competency at managing public perception of what they have (and/or have not accomplished) is less than competent. Remember this is less about good governance or statesmanship than political victory(ies).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Based on recent polling, their competency at managing public perception of what they have (and/or have not accomplished) is less than competent.

I don't normally agree with you, but in this case I will make an exception. 2.

But Club didn't say they have been bad at messaging. He said they are incompetent, which, aside from your cold political assessment, just doesn't have much relationship to reality.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't normally agree with you, but in this case I will make an exception. 2.

But Club didn't say they have been bad at messaging. He said they are incompetent, which, aside from your cold political assessment, just doesn't have much relationship to reality.

I would agree with you but at this point that would seem too circle-jerkie, no offence, nttawwt.

Maybe its the Guinness I am drinking......

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Maybe its the Guinness I am drinking......

It's way better in Ireland. Trust me.

Plus you can probably buy a coastal villa for the price of an LA bungalow. As long as you aren't afraid of the coming class warfare.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes. It is silly and stupid. Leaving aside the non-existent fear that courts will magically start citing Sharia as precedent, I so no reason to ban courts from considering whatever persuasive authority is out there, not least because of the complexity brought by ever increasing globalization that just might make convergence among similar legal systems highly efficient.

Putting aside what you may think are "similar legal systems", you have a surprising ally - http://volokh.com/2010/03/19/oklahom...lahoma-courts/

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I've already said my bit about the racial views of the Tea Partiers, and if I recall correctly I was what would usually be perceived as to the right of you, but I think what Brooks said was pretty awful, and not at all hard to understand.

i wrote a big long post where i said what i read him to have said. do you read it differently?

read this part again:

it seems like he's saying obama was able to get votes from some people who have racial baggage in 2008 and he needs to reassure them.

he might be saying it for bad reasons- to tell white indeps they should feel that way, i don't know- but in a way he's insulting white indeps (i think somewhat accurately FWIW). He does imply a slur against blacks on the way to the insult.

and you were initially less likely than I to paint the TP'ers as racists, but that didn't put you "to the right of me". in fact by saying "to the right" you sort of reinforced my point. "more forgiving of racism" or "less willing to tag someone as racist," may be qualities of a lot of Rs, but they aren't official party planks.