Gingrich: I wouldn't accept debate versus Obama moderated by reporters By NBC's Jamie Novogrod and msnbc.com's Michael O'Brien
Newt Gingrich threatened Monday to skip any debate as the Republican nominee versus President Obama that's moderated by a member of the media.
"As your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators," Gingrich said at a rally in Pensacola. "We don’t need to have a second Obama person at the debate."
The threat is in keeping with the scorn with which the former House speaker has treated the press throughout the campaign, particularly at debates. Gingrich most notably won a standing ovation by angrily dismissing a question at a South Carolina debate having to do with extramarital allegations made by an ex-wife.
Moreover, Gingrich has made his debating prowess a central selling point of his candidacy, promising fantastical showdowns with Obama in the general election. A frequent applause line for Gingrich, for instance, is his promise to challenge the president to seven, three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates.
As a reminder, though, presidential debates are governed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which have organized the general election debates since 1998. The commission has already set the number of presidential debates in 2012 at three, slated for this October. The moderators in these debates have not been announced, but will almost certainly be members of the media.
While I feel like it's a little presumptuous, perhaps, for him to dictate terms at a debate he almost certainly will not be attending anyway, I feel like someone needs to call him out on his shenanigans, and I'm going to do so. His most popular narrative for his campaign has been that the librul media is attacking him because they hate seeing a strong conservative in the race. Here are just some of the many people that have attacked Gingrich on TV, written, linked, or published hit pieces on him recently:
George Will
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Emmett Tyrrell
Charles Krauthammer
Matt Drudge
Elliot Abrams
As well as non-media people Bob Dole and Tom Delay.
None of these people are liberals. To a one, they are hardcore conservatives (well, maybe not Bob Dole, and Ann Coulter is more of a professional troll than a legitimate talking head, but anyway....).
I truly doubt any of them are "in the tank" for Obama. I don't know why Newt hasn't been called out yet on pretending that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin him, but it's, as they say, utter bollocks.
Professional Troll, now there's a career to aspire too.
Eh, it's all part of Newt's attempt to make himself look like the put upon outsider. He's trying to position himself as the conservative renegade the establishment doesn't want you to vote for and Romney as the the liberal media's attempt to sabotage the election.
You've got to give it to the guy. Rather than try to justify his past actions, his status as the Washington insider the insiders go to when they need an insider, and the fact that he is a reprehensible human being, it just didn't happen. He was Reagan's right hand man, an upright and moral husband and father, a Washington outsider, and most importantly the only real conservative in the election. This is really Baghdad Bob levels of denial and the killer is an even larger percentage of conservatives are buying it than Ron Paul's bs. At least Paul has always been nuts and isn't trying to pretend he's not.
Gingy (his nickname, or so my fevered brain has concocted) is not fit to be president, and perhaps may never learn so.
He carries too much baggage and is too alienating to the left to gain sufficient votes to get elected, let alone become the presidential nomination.
If there wasn't a right leaning moderate like Mitt Romney running, perhaps there would be a snowball's chance in hell he could get the nod from the Republican nomination.
Such as it is, he is much better suited to be a behind the doors sort of deal maker, not the guy running as president.
Ouze wrote:I truly doubt any of them are "in the tank" for Obama. I don't know why Newt hasn't been called out yet on pretending that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin him, but it's, as they say, utter bollocks.
I don't think Newt has made the case that there's a "vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin him," he's making the well-founded argument that the media is liberal and most reporters are in the tank for President Obama.
The big '08 debates were moderated by Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, and Bob Schieffer.
- You only need to see Lehrer's 2000 and 2004 moderator performances to be convinced of his bona fides.
- Ifill was in the process of writing a book about then-candidate Obama when she moderated the '08 debate.
- Brokaw is left-leaning, and has made no secret of his belief in the legitimacy of bias in the media.
- Bob Schieffer lavished praise on Obama during the campaign, and then pretended to be a neutral moderator for the debate.
Is there any reason to expect that media members who have praised and publicly supported the President's goals are going to be fair moderators in a political debate?
Glenn Beck doesn’t support Newt Gingrich. Let’s get that clear right from the start. The conservative former Fox News host considers the former House speaker a “progressive “ – yes, that’s the word Mr. Beck used today in a segment of his online GBTV show. He’s also critical of Mr. Gingrich’s marital history, and his work as a consultant for government mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
Beck calling Gingy a progressive is the Conservative equivalent of a Christian calling someone Satan.
I also feel like I should mention that I have enormous respect for what Newt Gingrich has done. He's made himself relevant, steered the direction of the primaries, kept himself in the public eye, successfully tapped into the conservative disdain for the media and used it as part of his vehicle - he's like a pouty, adulterous genius. Who would have thought at any point in the last 10 years there would be a significant percentage of Americans seriously considering electing him president? It's mind-boggling, what he's done.
Newt isn't electable. The man's baggage could fill a rail car and his skeletons could overflow a cemetary. He'd step out of the convention and onto the campaign trail and immediately be run right over by Obama and his PACs. He's going to polarize too many people and in the end you're leaving the ones in the middle with a choice between hard right and midway left. They'll likely flock to Obama and Newt will get buried.
Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.
I can't imagine that Newt Gingrich of all people isn't aware of this. Makes me think this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on his point to position himself as a major "player" on the right.
Tyyr wrote:Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.
If I were a Democrat and Mitt won the primary: I would create an innocuous sounding PAC and hammer down on the fact that he's a Mormon.
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues. The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks. And I'm not sure blaming Bush or the majority party in 1 chamber of Congress is going to work.
Ugh, I'd really hope that harping on his religion would backfire. Sadly I know a lot of people who hear Mormon and assume he'd immediately force us all to have multiple wives.
...which I'd be ok with since we'd have to bring them in from latin America and Asia just to make up the difference.
Obama's record does suck and it's leaving him open in this campaign. He's really let down the wave of college kids and minorities that got swept up in his campaign by just being another politician. The problem is that if they throw and easy one across the plate like Newt he doesn't have to debate the issues. There's enough dirt on Newt to bury him before he can ever even raise an issue.
Tyyr wrote:Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.
If I were a Democrat and Mitt won the primary: I would create an innocuous sounding PAC and hammer down on the fact that he's a Mormon.
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues. The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks. And I'm not sure blaming Bush or the majority party in 1 chamber of Congress is going to work.
That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.
he's making the well-founded argument that the media is liberal and most reporters are in the tank for President Obama.
That argument could certainly be well founded, but Newt isn't making one such argument. He's crying about being persecuted in order to dodge tough questions about how he is a scumbag that constantly contradicts himself. His fanbase (as befits people of their calibur) lap it up and cry about liberal media bias (not the general yellow tone of media).
Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.
Where are you getting that? Fox doesn't have the largest share of the media, not by a long shot. Most of 24 hour cable news channels I can see. But we're just talking CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and maybe Bloomberg. Meh.
Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.
Where are you getting that? Fox doesn't have the largest share of the media, not by a long shot. Most of 24 hour cable news channels I can see. But we're just talking CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and maybe Bloomberg. Meh.
They have about 40% of cable news ratings which is the largest single source for news media. You could hop up a level and just lambast newscorp and his post would be true.
Ah, well there you go. I don't watch many news programs.
Funny (in a sad kind of way) that they've decided to abandon any vestige of impartiality. Or are the stories headlined: "In a story having nothing to do with Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, Former Mormon Massachusettes Governors are evil bastards."
Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd. Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.
That's because conservatives on average (especially religious conservatives) have a victim complex.
biccat wrote:
Is there any reason to expect that media members who have praised and publicly supported the President's goals are going to be fair moderators in a political debate?
Is there any reason to suspect that a self-declared conservative is going to have a fair mind when assessing the ability of a moderator to be impartial?
And should moderators even be impartial? Can they be?
biccat wrote:
Is there any reason to expect that media members who have praised and publicly supported the President's goals are going to be fair moderators in a political debate?
Is there any reason to suspect that a self-declared conservative is going to have a fair mind when assessing the ability of a moderator to be impartial?
And should moderators even be impartial? Can they be?
I think I said "fair." Which is at least a step away from impartiality.
biccat wrote:
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues.
Nah, that's a waste of time as anyone who cares, already knows and won't vote for Romney.
You'll see, and should see, some of it but not as much as you apparently think.
biccat wrote:
The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks.
That depends on the issue you're talking about, and the person you're talking to.
For example, if I were a staffer, I wouldn't bother trying to convince you, its not possible because you're dyed-in-the-wool. But if I were talking to a random guy working at an auto plant, or a guy on the dole...yeah, I'm probably going to talk about "the issues" (itself a ridiculously vague term).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
I think I said "fair." Which is at least a step away from impartiality.
Later on you mentioned vestiges of impartiality, so I assumed that's how you were defining the word "fair" which is what many call a "weasel word".
biccat wrote:
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues.
Nah, that's a waste of time as anyone who cares, already knows and won't vote for Romney.
It's really not. If Romney succeeds in making the key issues in the election the economy, experience, or job performance, he wins the moderate vote. And probably quite a few liberals.
If Obama succeeds in making the key issues in the election foreign policy (Romney has none, Obama at least has some), hate-the-rich OWS rhetoric, or "American Values" (which Obama steered away from in '08), he wins the middle. But if he draws off, or dissuades, the key Republican voting bloc - staunchly conservative voters - while maintaining his own, he wins, even if Romney wins on the issues.
dogma wrote:You'll see, and should see, some of it but not as much as you apparently think.
I'm not sure what you mean "should see." Do you really think that religious divisiveness is a positive? Or do you think that smart politicians make religious divisiveness a key issue?
dogma wrote:That depends on the issue you're talking about, and the person you're talking to.
For example, if I were a staffer, I wouldn't bother trying to convince you, its not possible because you're dyed-in-the-wool. But if I were talking to a random guy working at an auto plant, or a guy on the dole...yeah, I'm probably going to talk about "the issues" (itself a ridiculously vague term).
For most moderates it's going to be a hard sell that Obama is doing well on the economy. The only people you're likely to convince are the left-wing, who are going to vote for Obama over Romney or Gingrich regardless.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
I think I said "fair." Which is at least a step away from impartiality.
Later on you mentioned vestiges of impartiality, so I assumed that's how you were defining the word "fair" which is what many call a "weasel word".
Actually, that was earlier on. And that didn't suggest that you have to be impartial, just that you should pretend to be.
biccat wrote:
It's really not. If Romney succeeds in making the key issues in the election the economy, experience, or job performance, he wins the moderate vote. And probably quite a few liberals.
There is no realistic scenario in which Romney wins self-espoused liberals, the same is true of Obama vis a vis conservatives. This is shaping up as one of the most partisan election in American history.
Romney won't voice an experience argument because, you know, he's running against an incumbent.
He can voice the economy argument, but the problem with that is many see it as a government problem, and not a Democrat problem. Partisans blame their opposition, but no one cares about them outside the nominal pleasantries.
Job performance is another dicey argument as, while unemployment spiked under Obama, it also went down from that spike. Again, partisans blame their opposition...
biccat wrote:
If Obama succeeds in making the key issues in the election foreign policy (Romney has none, Obama at least has some), hate-the-rich OWS rhetoric, or "American Values" (which Obama steered away from in '08), he wins the middle.
Regarding foreign policy, some what? Experience? Obama and Romney have basically the same foreign policy positions. Obama may run on killing bin Laden, and taking troops out of Iraq, but that's not going to be a major issue.
Obama hasn't espoused the OWS position thus far, and is not likely to do so. It would be foolish. I also suspect you're conflating "Higher taxes on the rich!" with OWS rhetoric, they're not the same; though they are similar.
Obama will run on "American values", so will any GOP nominee.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean "should see." Do you really think that religious divisiveness is a positive? Or do you think that smart politicians make religious divisiveness a key issue?
Yes (and issue, not a key issue), if they want to get elected, and happen to be Democrats.
biccat wrote:
For most moderates it's going to be a hard sell that Obama is doing well on the economy. The only people you're likely to convince are the left-wing, who are going to vote for Obama over Romney or Gingrich regardless.
Its likely to be a hard sell for any GOP candidate as well.
biccat wrote:
Actually, that was earlier on. And that didn't suggest that you have to be impartial, just that you should pretend to be.
dogma wrote:Obama may run on killing bin Laden, and taking troops out of Iraq, but that's not going to be a major issue.
Which is hilarious, in its own way. A guy who could've run on being the guy under whose watch bin Laden was killed would have been elected King for Life eight years ago, probably even four.
Tyyr wrote:Newt isn't electable. The man's baggage could fill a rail car and his skeletons could overflow a cemetary. He'd step out of the convention and onto the campaign trail and immediately be run right over by Obama and his PACs. He's going to polarize too many people and in the end you're leaving the ones in the middle with a choice between hard right and midway left. They'll likely flock to Obama and Newt will get buried.
Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.
I can't imagine that Newt Gingrich of all people isn't aware of this. Makes me think this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on his point to position himself as a major "player" on the right.
Well then i do hope Gingrich wins the primary.
Also isnt this the guys that left his wife who was just diagnosed with cancers because she wouldn't swing? Running as a republican who main demographic is socially conservative nutbags who cant look past their own religions goggles to see the truth.
Obama s more a family man then him
Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.
Favourability for Romney is in the low 40s, only slightly behind Obama’s score. It leaves him ground to make up, which might be hard when he’s got so much work to do at the same time to build enthusiasm among conservatives, but it wouldn’t be impossible.
Whereas Gingrich score in the mid to high 20s, a score that basically makes you unelectable.
More importantly, Gingrich has barely enough funding for a bare bones primary campaign. He has almost no ground campaign. Romney is far more resourced, and will still need to expand greatly to match Obama’s machine in a primary. He cannot win, or even compete in a presidential election. He's what is left, after all the other not-Romneys have been tried and found crazy. Romney will win the primary and win confortably, but the desperate search among the Republican faithful for someone, anyone, but Romney shows he may have serious problems in the Presidential election.
biccat wrote:If I were a Democrat and Mitt won the primary: I would create an innocuous sounding PAC and hammer down on the fact that he's a Mormon.
This strategy wanders between dubious and poor. It’s really not testing as a major negative for Romney. Among Conservatives Romney’s biggest problem is his perceived liberal credentials, and among progressives it’s his tie to big business.
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues. The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks. And I'm not sure blaming Bush or the majority party in 1 chamber of Congress is going to work.
Obama has done enough on social issues to convince enough progressives he’s not just like the other side. The only place he really gets hurt is on the economy, and while anyone that knows anything knows he had nothing to do with the GFC. Of course, elections aren’t decided by people that know anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
FOX news dominates cable news, which is still only a fraction of total news coverage. News coverage on the networks draws in vastly more viewers than cable news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:That's because conservatives on average (especially religious conservatives) have a victim complex.
Being the absolutely dominant cultural force in the nation, and believing you’re under siege from everyone else is a very weird thing, but it’s what defines what these people are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:It's really not. If Romney succeeds in making the key issues in the election the economy, experience, or job performance, he wins the moderate vote. And probably quite a few liberals.
Are you really claiming that the guy who’s just been president for four years would lose on the experience front? “All you’ve done is be president… president in a government, and we all know that’s just for slackers. Whereas I was a governor.”
Meanwhile, Obama can just as easily win on the economy. All he has to do is make the case that it’s been four tough years because of the GFC, which was brought on by rampant corporate greed. It’s not the whole truth, but campaign sloganeering never is, and most importantly is frames Romney as the face of corporate greed.
If Obama succeeds in making the key issues in the election foreign policy (Romney has none, Obama at least has some), hate-the-rich OWS rhetoric, or "American Values" (which Obama steered away from in '08), he wins the middle. But if he draws off, or dissuades, the key Republican voting bloc - staunchly conservative voters - while maintaining his own, he wins, even if Romney wins on the issues.
Four years as president counts as ‘at least some’ experience on foreign policy. You’re really wowing me with your impartial reading of this election, biccat. Not that elections are won on foreign policy anyway.
For most moderates it's going to be a hard sell that Obama is doing well on the economy. The only people you're likely to convince are the left-wing, who are going to vote for Obama over Romney or Gingrich regardless.
You seem to be assuming that winning an election is about reaching out to the moderates and bringing them over to you. There are not that many moderates and very few vote. What actually matters is getting your side, either conservatives or liberals, to like you enough that they bother to get out and vote. The difference between 2004 and 2008 wasn’t that Obama was able to win moderates that Kerry couldn’t, or that Bush was more appealing to moderates than McCain, the issue was that McCain wasn’t as popular among Republican voting blocs and so their participation rates dropped, while Obama was more popular among Democrat voting blocs than Kerry. Enthusiasm is the key.
Melissia wrote:That's because conservatives on average (especially religious conservatives) have a victim complex.
Being the absolutely dominant cultural force in the nation, and believing you’re under siege from everyone else is a very weird thing, but it’s what defines what these people are.
Weird doesn't even begin to describe it. "DEM GAYZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM BLACKZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM WOMMENZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM MUSLIMZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM LIB'RULZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM MESSICANZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" Or other variants of "DEM [insert noun here] ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" is pretty much standard fare, and it's goddamned annoying to listen to.
The average conservative's idea of "feminism" seems to be "women who want to cut mens' balls off and rule over them in a matriarchal society where men are slaves to women", which is extremely far from anything remotely resembling feminism... There's even people who argue this on this very forum.
Melissia wrote:That's because conservatives on average (especially religious conservatives) have a victim complex.
Being the absolutely dominant cultural force in the nation, and believing you’re under siege from everyone else is a very weird thing, but it’s what defines what these people are.
Weird doesn't even begin to describe it. "DEM GAYZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM BLACKZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM WOMMENZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM MUSLIMZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM LIB'RULZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM MESSICANZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" Or other variants of "DEM [insert noun here] ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" is pretty much standard fare, and it's goddamned annoying to listen to.
The average conservative's idea of "feminism" seems to be "women who want to cut mens' balls off and rule over them in a matriarchal society where men are slaves to women", which is extremely far from anything remotely resembling feminism... There's even people who argue this on this very forum.
Have you met Melissia? She doesn't like Republicans.
The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd.
I dunno. A lot of their ideas are centered around people coming to get them/retaking America or that sort of thing. Obviously not all Republicans have victim complexes, but most lead Republicans do.
Melissia wrote:That's because conservatives on average (especially religious conservatives) have a victim complex.
Being the absolutely dominant cultural force in the nation, and believing you’re under siege from everyone else is a very weird thing, but it’s what defines what these people are.
Weird doesn't even begin to describe it. "DEM GAYZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM BLACKZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM WOMMENZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM MUSLIMZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM LIB'RULZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" "DEM MESSICANZ ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" Or other variants of "DEM [insert noun here] ARE COMIN' AFTER US!" is pretty much standard fare, and it's goddamned annoying to listen to.
The average conservative's idea of "feminism" seems to be "women who want to cut mens' balls off and rule over them in a matriarchal society where men are slaves to women", which is extremely far from anything remotely resembling feminism... There's even people who argue this on this very forum.
biccat wrote:The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd
The republican party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on tax issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on race issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues. The republican party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Appealing to the majority populace claiming that "you are a victim and I am on your side" is standard republican fare..
biccat wrote:The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd
The republican party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Appealing to the majority populace claiming that "you are a victim and I am on your side" is standard republican fare..
You're right. I'll note additionally that:
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
@Frazzled that is because on some ssues people are victims of a socially conservative order. Example, Sexuality and race.
Conservatives are not vitims when you are trying to change an order that all it does it make people equal
hotsauceman1 wrote:@Frazzled that is because on some ssues people are victims of a socially conservative order. Example, Sexuality and race. Conservatives are not vitims when you are trying to change an order that all it does it make people equal
Totally.
When Republicans do something, it's bad.
When Democrats do it, it's because they're right.
Like when the Democrats fillibustered almost all of President Bush's nominees, it's because they were bad candidates. But when the Republicans fillibustered almost all of President Obama's nominees, it's because the Republicans are jerk-faces.
biccat wrote:The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd
The republican party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Appealing to the majority populace claiming that "you are a victim and I am on your side" is standard republican fare..
You're right. I'll note additionally that:
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Politicians gonna politics. Let's be honest, this is standard fare for parties everywhere.
hotsauceman1 wrote:@Frazzled that is because on some ssues people are victims of a socially conservative order. Example, Sexuality and race.
Conservatives are not vitims when you are trying to change an order that all it does it make people equal
Totally.
When Republicans do something, it's bad.
When Democrats do it, it's because they're right.
Like when the Democrats fillibustered almost all of President Bush's nominees, it's because they were bad candidates. But when the Republicans fillibustered almost all of President Obama's nominees, it's because the Republicans are jerk-faces.
biccat wrote:The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd
The republican party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Appealing to the majority populace claiming that "you are a victim and I am on your side" is standard republican fare..
You're right. I'll note additionally that:
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Politicians gonna politics. Let's be honest, this is standard fare for parties everywhere.
Yea I'd put in Libertarians, American Communists, and Greens but my fingers are getting tired.
biccat wrote:The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd.
Seconded.
While they do engage in that sort of behavior, the idea that it's Republicans doing it exclusively is laughable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:The idea that Republicans are the party with a victim complex is completely absurd
The republican party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The republican party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Appealing to the majority populace claiming that "you are a victim and I am on your side" is standard republican fare..
You're right. I'll note additionally that:
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The Democratic Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Frazzled wrote:But minorities make up majorities in this country
Only combined. Many have competing interests I should note.
But the argument that, to continue the previous example, heterosexuals are "victimzed" by homosexuals wanting to marry is stupid and without any logical merit.
Frazzled wrote:But minorities make up majorities in this country
Only combined. Many hvae competing interests I should note.
Not just many. EVERYONE has competing interests.
Many interests have at least something that goes well together. It is why the civil rights movement encompasses more than merely ethnic-black Americans, for example.
And you still didn't answer the second part of that post...
"But the argument that, to continue the previous example, heterosexuals are "victimzed" by homosexuals wanting to marry is stupid and without any logical merit."
If you're the majority then you're not a minority thats just basic diction. On the inverse, everyone's a minority too, as Melissia noted, everyone has different interests.
It should be noted that you're quoting the "sociology" definition of minority. Sociologists basically invented the victimization cottage industry, so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group.
Frazzled wrote:If you're the majority then you're not a minority thats just basic diction. On the inverse, everyone's a minority too, as Melissia noted, everyone has different interests.
It should be noted that you're quoting the "sociology" definition of minority. Sociologists basically invented the victimization cottage industry, so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group.
Yay, I'm a minority!
Sociologists didnt invent it. They just expsosed it.
Also what type of victim are you?
It should be noted that you're quoting the "sociology" definition of minority. Sociologists basically invented the victimization cottage industry, so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group.
Yay, I'm a minority!
Sociologists didnt invent it. They just expsosed it.
Also what type of victim are you?
It should be noted that you're quoting the "sociology" definition of minority. Sociologists basically invented the victimization cottage industry, so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group.
Yay, I'm a minority!
Sociologists didnt invent it. They just expsosed it.
Also what type of victim are you?
biccat is a victim of all of us Liberals.
Well good. Let the republican get a taste of what their policies have done to others.
Frazzled wrote:I'm a minority ten times over. I'm the victim! Give me money!
You can't have any of my money, it's my right as a minority to this money. Get it from someone in the majority. Like hotsauceman.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Sociologists didnt invent it. They just expsosed it.
You misspelled "turned the idea on its head and abused it to the point where it bears no particular relevance to the original concept." But I forgive you, those letters are like right next to each other.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also what type of victim are you?
I wasn't aware that I am also a victim. Does minority status also convey victimhood?
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also what type of victim are you?
I wasn't aware that I am also a victim. Does minority status also convey victimhood?
If you go by the definition i gave then yes. Typically minorities are victims.
It could be said like this
The numerical minority with all the power is a majority.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also what type of victim are you?
I wasn't aware that I am also a victim. Does minority status also convey victimhood?
If you go by the definition i gave then yes. Typically minorities are victims.
It could be said like this
The numerical minority with all the power is a majority.
So under this definition then the "EVIL 1%" are not only not evil, but, being one of the smallest minorities, ia one of the most victimized. Government needs to step in and correct this outrage!
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also what type of victim are you?
I wasn't aware that I am also a victim. Does minority status also convey victimhood?
If you go by the definition i gave then yes. Typically minorities are victims.
It could be said like this
The numerical minority with all the power is a majority.
So under this definition then the "EVIL 1%" are not only not evil, but, being one of the smallest minorities, ia one of the most victimized. Government needs to step in and correct this outrage!
Welll.... no, because he stated that "minorities with all the power" are majorities. In other words, the so-called 1% who supposedly have all the power.
At least, I think that's what he's going for.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also what type of victim are you?
I wasn't aware that I am also a victim. Does minority status also convey victimhood?
If you go by the definition i gave then yes. Typically minorities are victims.
It could be said like this
The numerical minority with all the power is a majority.
So under this definition then the "EVIL 1%" are not only not evil, but, being one of the smallest minorities, ia one of the most victimized. Government needs to step in and correct this outrage!
Welll.... no, because he stated that "minorities with all the power" are majorities. In other words, the so-called 1% who supposedly have all the power.
At least, I think that's what he's going for.
Power is a metaphysical concept. As that 1% can be easily descriminated against by well, everyone, because they are only 1% (outvoted, out elected...etc.etc.) then they truly have no power. Once again, the government must DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS POTENTIAL OPPRESSION!
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also what type of victim are you?
I wasn't aware that I am also a victim. Does minority status also convey victimhood?
If you go by the definition i gave then yes. Typically minorities are victims.
It could be said like this
The numerical minority with all the power is a majority.
So under this definition then the "EVIL 1%" are not only not evil, but, being one of the smallest minorities, ia one of the most victimized. Government needs to step in and correct this outrage!
Welll.... no, because he stated that "minorities with all the power" are majorities. In other words, the so-called 1% who supposedly have all the power.
At least, I think that's what he's going for.
Power is a metaphysical concept. As that 1% can be easily descriminated against by well, everyone, because they are only 1% (outvoted, out elected...etc.etc.) then they truly have no power. Once again, the government must DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS POTENTIAL OPPRESSION!
Well, there you go then. Definition needs redefining.
"But the argument that, to continue the previous example, heterosexuals are "victimzed" by homosexuals wanting to marry is stupid and without any logical merit."
"But the argument that, to continue the previous example, heterosexuals are "victimzed" by homosexuals wanting to marry is stupid and without any logical merit."
There you go Frazz. That one.
Yes, that one.
I'm still waiting.
Heterosexuals as a block, no. Heterosexuals that believe marriage is between a man and a woman...yes. Further, as this group of hetero's are a minority of hetero's then again, we're dealing with minority oppression. Further, as a majority of US citizenry may be in favor, its another clear case of minority oppression. Government must stop this outrage!
Frazzled wrote:Heterosexuals as a block, no. Heterosexuals that believe marriage is between a man and a woman...yes.
That is stupid logic; not even logic really, it's nothing more than a blaise and blatant attempt at manipulating statistics to prove a point. And even WITH this blatantly stupid attempt to sketch and skew statistics to the limit, even then, allowing homosexual marriage does not oppress that subgroup any more than freedom of religion oppresses Christians (or Muslims if you prefer) because they can't legally stone people to death for not being Christians (or Muslims).
Frazzled wrote:Power is a metaphysical concept. As that 1% can be easily descriminated against by well, everyone, because they are only 1% (outvoted, out elected...etc.etc.) then they truly have no power. Once again, the government must DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS POTENTIAL OPPRESSION!
The 1% obviously has all the power, otherwise they wouldn't be bad guys. So therefore the 1% is actually a majority. In fact, I think they would be a supermajority, especially given how few of them there are. In contrast, the 99% who have the power to impose their political will on the 1% without their consent are actually in the minority.
Homosexuals have, at least in a few states, overcome opposition to gay marriage by political will. So this group of maybe 1% has political strength over same-sex marriage opponents (only gays count for this group because without any homosexuals there wouldn't be any need for same-sex marriage). Ergo, homosexuals, despite being only about 1% of the population, actually enjoy majority status in some states.
Is this the "1%" the OWS crowd was protesting? I'm going to assume so. This may, possibly, mean that OWS supporters are homophobes, or heterophiles. Possibly homonyms.
Frazzled wrote:Heterosexuals as a block, no. Heterosexuals that believe marriage is between a man and a woman...yes.
That is stupid logic; not even logic really, it's nothing more than a blaise and blatant attempt at manipulating statistics to prove a point. And even WITH this blatantly stupid attempt to sketch and skew statistics to the limit, even then, allowing homosexual marriage does not oppress that subgroup any more than freedom of religion oppresses Christians because they can't legally stone people to death for not being Christians.
No, just no.
See, now you're trying to oppress me. As a neaderthal - American I am a true minority, and now you're trying to oppress me for responding with an example to your question. Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed! Everyone witness the violence inherent in the sytem!
OT but the Washington bill passed the Washington state senate. Democracy - hurray!
Frazzled wrote:See, now you're trying to oppress me. As a neaderthal - American I am a true minority, and now you're trying to oppress me for responding with an example to your question. Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed! Everyone witness the violence inherent in the sytem!
Jokes and Monty Python references don't hide logical ineptitude, Fraz
No matter how much you attempt to mock my point, it still stands.
Frazzled wrote:See, now you're trying to oppress me. As a neaderthal - American I am a true minority, and now you're trying to oppress me for responding with an example to your question. Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed! Everyone witness the violence inherent in the sytem!
Jokes and Monty Python references don't hide logical ineptitude, Fraz
No matter how much you attempt to mock my point, it still stands.
Hey its as logical as any other nonsense on this thread.
Since I am doing movie quotes: "at last my arm is complete." From what Burton movie? What other version starred Angela " you Hitler!" Landsbury ?
Frazzled wrote:See, now you're trying to oppress me. As a neaderthal - American I am a true minority, and now you're trying to oppress me for responding with an example to your question. Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed! Everyone witness the violence inherent in the sytem!
Jokes and Monty Python references don't hide logical ineptitude, Fraz
Frazzled wrote:See, now you're trying to oppress me. As a neaderthal - American I am a true minority, and now you're trying to oppress me for responding with an example to your question. Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed! Everyone witness the violence inherent in the sytem!
Jokes and Monty Python references don't hide logical ineptitude, Fraz
And over the top hostility does, apparently?
Apparently. But we've moved into the "sorry you can't post unless you quote an obscure movie quote that Frazzled knows of" phase.
frankly its all "creatures from the id!"
As a refresher:
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Frazzled wrote:I think your list slamming republicans for pretty much everything since the death of the dino
Frazzled wrote:As a refresher: The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on race issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues. The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Are not equivalent.
My argument was that the Republican party does its best to convince the majority population that they're the victim and that the Republican party is on their side. That is not "slamming Republicans for everything since the death of the dino".
Frazzled wrote:I think your list slamming republicans for pretty much everything since the death of the dino
Frazzled wrote:As a refresher:
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on immigration issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on tax issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on sexuality issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on gun control issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on minority rights issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on race issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on religious rights issues.
The Republican Party plays the victim complex card on foreign policy issues.
Are not equivalent.
You're right. You didn't blame the Republican Party for global warming...yet.
Melissia wrote:My statement was not at all hyperbole.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the term used in rhetoric. For the mathematical term, see Hyperbola.
Look up hyperbole in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Hyperbole ( /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[2] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton.
I'm not certain if you're joking or you really believe that.
you Hitler!" Landsbury ?