Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius wrote:I think when you're looking for reasons to be upset, you see them.

Your selective outrage is noted.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think when you're looking for reasons to be upset, you see them.

Your selective outrage is noted.

I don't see how I'm being either selective or outraged.

Are you trying to tell me that you're not in any way interested in discussion, and are just here to scrap? That's fine, but It's good for me to know, so I can plan my responses.

biccat wrote:You appear to be confusing classical Liberalism with Progressivism.

Liberalism is the pursuit of rights (at least, classical Liberalism, before the socialist movement corrupted up the term, jerks) and freedom. Progressivism is the pursuit of "social justice" or "social equality." They are completely separate terms.

When Lenin promised "Peace! Bread! Land!" was he advocating for rights or social justice?

Was the New Deal an expansion of rights, or an expansion of social justice.

Your theory ultimately doesn't make much sense. Just give it up.

When times are bad, people will see their rights being violated, and will seek more freedoms, on that I agree.

When Egyptians protested over unemployment, they weren't protesting for the "right to a job". That makes no sense. They were protesting for a job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:What did obama actually do for you guys?

All I got from him was; He's semi-black and got a peace prize for being a recent US president not to start a war.

Health Care Reform and the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Other than that he's been pretty hamstrung by inheriting and economic collapse and two wars. Oh, and his decision to take a conciliatory appoach to a very hostile opposition.

You really should have been able to say HCR and DADT. Seriously, you can like or dislike the guy, there are plenty of reasonable arguments to go one way or the other, but if you were honestly unaware of HCR and DADT as cornerstones of Obama's first term, that's pretty grim.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't really see that he's been much of a change from Bush, aside from the fact that comedians make fun of him less since he's a democrat.

Yeah, because no-one made fun of Clinton at all. Nope, not one bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:not to derail a thread, but I'm really starting to come around to the idea that democracy as a form of government might be more cultural than we think. Few countries outside of the Western tradition really have functioning democracies, and those that do operate very differently than we're used to.

I've heard that argument before, and was swayed by it for a time. Then I got to wondering how you decide if a society wants democracy or not... and the only way to do that is to let them vote on it. At which point I realised democracy is an inherently desirous thing.

I certainly think there are countries that aren't ready for democracy, because they don't have the political infrastructure, or necessary education amongst the population. Or because they don't have the culture and legal institutions to ensure the protection of groups who might become the target of the majority.

That's what I think has actually made it so hard in Iraq and other places, this idea that you vote first and built a constitution and bill of rights from there. As long as there's no bill of rights ensuring everyone has the right to be left alone, then elections are going to be violent and corrupt affairs, because the stakes are too high to let some other religious group take power and threaten your life and liberty.

biccat wrote:
In the short term, yeah. In the long term, who knows.

Sure, I was only really commenting in terms of the next election. I'm not really interested in speculating about how figure X will be regarded in the future.

biccat wrote:
Here I thought the executive branch was charged with running the bureaucracy and executing the law.

Of course, most of the time, it will act according to the law as established, but it will also often act outside it where no legal guidance exists, and work to test the boundaries of those laws that are established. The branches fight each other for power all the time, that's just the way it is.

sebster wrote:When Lenin promised "Peace! Bread! Land!" was he advocating for rights or social justice?

Was the New Deal an expansion of rights, or an expansion of social justice.

Again, you're confusing the idea of progressivism with liberalism. If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you spend some time looking it up.

So yes, when Lenin promised "Peace! Bread! Land!", he was advocating for social justice, not rights.

sebster wrote:

When times are bad, people will see their rights being violated, and will seek more freedoms, on that I agree.

When Egyptians protested over unemployment, they weren't protesting for the "right to a job". That makes no sense. They were protesting for a job.

Either Egyptians were protesting against "injustices (perceived or actual)" or they were protesting "for a job." You can't have it both ways.

sebster wrote:Oh, and his decision to take a conciliatory appoach to a very hostile opposition.

Heh. Seriously, it's effing hilarious that you believe this.

sebster wrote:As long as there's no bill of rights ensuring everyone has the right to be left alone, then elections are going to be violent and corrupt affairs, because the stakes are too high to let some other religious group take power and threaten your life and liberty.

You realize that this conclusion is completely contradictory to the position you used to get there, right? Also, it's completely at odds with the history of every modern democracy. If you're going to continue to make absurd statements, you really should at least make them internally consistent.

biccat wrote:Again, you're confusing the idea of progressivism with liberalism. If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you spend some time looking it up.

So yes, when Lenin promised "Peace! Bread! Land!", he was advocating for social justice, not rights.

So you're conceding the point that social justice, which you attached to progressivism, can come from poor economic times, such Russia in 1917, which means you've abandoned your original statement "when people are economically content, they favor progressivism. When they're not, they don't".

It's just you're too pissy to admit it.

Either Egyptians were protesting against "injustices (perceived or actual)" or they were protesting "for a job." You can't have it both ways.

Of course I can. Well, rather, you can have nice long think about how one thing can be easily seen as one in the same, to certain people.

When you play the game that government set up, go and get the education they said you needed, then you end up with no job, people see that as an injustice. They see that as a big injustice.

Heh. Seriously, it's effing hilarious that you believe this.

Uh huh. Go now, little footsoldier, to the world where things are true because the Republican noise machine says so, where Obama is a socialist tyrant who just tries to ram every thing through congress in the nastiest way possible.

You realize that this conclusion is completely contradictory to the position you used to get there, right? Also, it's completely at odds with the history of every modern democracy. If you're going to continue to make absurd statements, you really should at least make them internally consistent.

I didn't use anything to get from somewhere to somewhere else. Your complaint is gibberish. My point can be summed up simply, "a country needs an underlying set of protections before democracy can really be put in place, else every election threatens to strip away essential freedoms from certain groups, and becomes too dangerous for individual groups to leave up to the whims of the masses".

There are probably many complaints that can be made about it (at the very least it needs a bit clarifying that historically many groups didn't have those freedoms written down at first, but maintained through understanding, even then it's very broad), but your complaint about it was gibberish, and pretty much showed you're really not thinking before you post. Maybe operate a little less on emotion?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:What did obama actually do for you guys?

All I got from him was; He's semi-black and got a peace prize for being a recent US president not to start a war.

He'll shut down Guantanamo! Or, well, not.

He'll see that the Bush flunkies in charge of torturing people get brought to justice! Or protect them instead, maybe that.

He'll roll back the Bush assault on civil liberties! Or keep up all the same 'warrants? we don't need no steenkin warrents' fun.

He'll pass a national healthcare law! That ends up being written primarily to protect insurance executive salaries.

He'll get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan! On basically the same timetable Bush had set up.

OK, at least he won't get us into any more wars in the middle east until those are done. Well, except for Libya.


I don't really see that he's been much of a change from Bush, aside from the fact that comedians make fun of him less since he's a democrat.

You forgot that Obama has since suspended all non military commission trials for detainees. Not to mention that he already stated outright he was going to keep people detained even if the courts acquitted them. For bonus points Obama ordered the assassination of a non combatant (and US citizen), and his administration has expanded torture to members of the US army that whistleblow on the government. He also totally failed to even *pretend* to address the extraordinary rendition practices (for those keeping count, I've just accused him of a whopping 4 crimes against humanity, Bush only had 3 by my count).

No, the death of the progressive movement came when we got duped into electing him.

Requia wrote:No, the death of the progressive movement came when we got duped into electing him.

People knew what they were getting when they voted for him; an idealist who sought change. In the electrified environment that it was about his nomination and subsequent election, we forgot that reality hits harder than dreams. We simply bought into the dream of a brighter future.

Naw, he was never an idealist who sought change, he had already backed a bill legalizing the warrantless wiretaps (and fairly cleverly too, by fighting a higher profile ammendment in the same bill to excuse the behavior of the corporations who did the governments dirty work in that matter). We just weren't paying proper attention.

sebster wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't really see that he's been much of a change from Bush, aside from the fact that comedians make fun of him less since he's a democrat.

Yeah, because no-one made fun of Clinton at all. Nope, not one bit.

Do you actually understand what the word 'less' means? Hint: It does not mean 'no-one at all' or 'nope, not one bit'. An inability or unwillingness to comprehend really basic English, like the difference between 'less' and 'none', doesn't do much to bolster any argument you might make.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Do you actually understand what the word 'less' means? Hint: It does not mean 'no-one at all' or 'nope, not one bit'. An inability or unwillingness to comprehend really basic English, like the difference between 'less' and 'none', doesn't do much to bolster any argument you might make.

He wasn't disagreeing with the idea that Obama is mocked less, he was disagreeing with the idea that his membership in the Democratic Party is what causes him to be mocked less. Obama is definitely mocked less than Bush, but whether or not that's because he is a Democrat is up for debate. It may be that Bush was simply easier to mock.

Granted, its hard to compare Clinton to Obama, or even Bush, because politically oriented comedy has become both more popular, and more accessible (for example, John Stewart only took over the Daily Show in '99).

dogma wrote:He wasn't disagreeing with the idea that Obama is mocked less,

If he wasn't, he should have written his post better, and he can say what he means himself, I'm not going to accept your rewrite as 'what he meant'.

Obama is definitely mocked less than Bush, but whether or not that's because he is a Democrat is up for debate. It may be that Bush was simply easier to mock.

It because he's a democrat . Obama is easy to mock too, he has some odd speach patterns and misspeaks words too, but democrat-leaning comedians lean off of mocking him just like they did Clinton. Sure, you see some jokes, but you don't see the unending stream of 'Obama is so dumb' or 'Obama said what' jokes like you did with Bush. It's good in a way, because so many of the Bush jokes were just lame - 'hahah Bush is dumb I don't like him' isn't the basis of good humor, it's just partisan babble - so you end up with about the same amount of jokes worth hearing about both. I voted against Bush and for Obama, so it's not a case of 'oh no they're mocking my guy', it's just an extremely notable difference.

Granted, its hard to compare Clinton to Obama, or even Bush, because politically oriented comedy has become both more popular, and more accessible (for example, John Stewart only took over the Daily Show in '99).

The daily show is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the party-based difference in treatment. Obama's mannerisms and slips of the toungue appear to be completely off-limits, while Bush's obviously weren't. The secret trials, lack of trials, torture memos, and so on were the subject of dark comedy under Bush - but don't seem to get mentioned for Obama at all.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:It because he's a democrat .

I feel like you are starting with the answer you want and then working the evidence around to come back to in instead of the other way around. As if just stating it is making it true. Everything can be macked, that doesn't mean it is actually that good of a jock or should be done.

Obama still gets tagged every week, even outside the Daily Show and Colbert, which have been quite critical of him and called him out many times.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Do you actually understand what the word 'less' means? Hint: It does not mean 'no-one at all' or 'nope, not one bit'. An inability or unwillingness to comprehend really basic English, like the difference between 'less' and 'none', doesn't do much to bolster any argument you might make.

Yeah, I shouldn't haven't just made a general response. I should have presumed that you'd respond in an incredibly literal manner.

My point, simply, was that when there's a joke there to be made the comedians will make it. When you've got things like Bush's mannerisms and Clinton's sex scandal the comedians will jump all over it. Obama hasn't fed them anywhere near as much material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:The daily show is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the party-based difference in treatment. Obama's mannerisms and slips of the toungue appear to be completely off-limits, while Bush's obviously weren't.

Bush's mannerisms were really, really funny. Like, if that guy was just the local manager of a Walmart there's a chance he would have reached international fame because he was just an inherently comical character. Before him you had Clinton, who's sex scandal was probably responsible for about half the jokes told in the 90s.

Before that you had Bush Sr - do you think there were more or less jokes about him and his mannerisms than there are about Obama?

The secret trials, lack of trials, torture memos, and so on were the subject of dark comedy under Bush - but don't seem to get mentioned for Obama at all.

I agree that there not mentioned as much, and think that's in part due to Democrats and other liberals being less concerned when their guy does it (and that's pretty damn poor), but they certainly generate plenty of mention.

There was plenty of talk just recently over the agreement to give gitmo detainees military trials, which Obama conceded to more right leaning Democrats as a trade-off to get DADT passed.

Bush also made some hay in both elections off the anti-intellectualism movement. The guy never really sold himself as brilliant, and tried hard to look like "one of the guys." In that context, his gaffes and misstatements are pretty funny. Obama OTOH is a law professor that presents himself as a bright guy. He's more articulate and well spoken, which doesn't make him a better person or president (Reagan was charming and smooth while Truman was neither), but it does make him less amusing.

You also have the general concern a lot of comics have of playing with anything close to a racial stereotype with Obama. You can talk all you want about a double standard, but it's boring and I'm not really interested. The point is, casting W as a monkey is vaguely amusing. Casting the big O as one is vaguely disturbing.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
It because he's a democrat .

So you've eliminated all other possibilities through a process of measured, systematic, deduction? That's very impressive.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Obama is easy to mock too, he has some odd speach patterns and misspeaks words too, but democrat-leaning comedians lean off of mocking him just like they did Clinton.

That's not what I said. I said that Bush may have been easier to mock than Obama, which makes no comment on whether or not Obama is himself easy to mock. For someone that chastises others for not reading posts you certainly do a very poor job of it yourself.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The daily show is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the party-based difference in treatment. Obama's mannerisms and slips of the toungue appear to be completely off-limits, while Bush's obviously weren't. The secret trials, lack of trials, torture memos, and so on were the subject of dark comedy under Bush - but don't seem to get mentioned for Obama at all.

They also didn't mock Bush for continuing Clinton's fiscal reforms, even when it became apparent that they were materially significant to the GFC. In general it seems like the Daily Show doesn't reach back for jokes by mocking Presidents for continuing the policies of their predecessors (though they have mocked Obama for keeping Gitmo open), but again, that's ahrd to really assess given that the Daily Show has really only existed in its current form during a GOP administration.

sebster wrote:Yeah, I shouldn't haven't just made a general response. I should have presumed that you'd respond in an incredibly literal manner.

Interpreting a sarcastic 'yes, that never happened' as 'that actually happened and you're overlooking it' is the most sensible interpretation of the statement. It is not interpreting it in 'an incredibly literal manner', it is simply interpreting it as an actual response to what I said instead of a complete non-sequitor. If you refuse to communicate in a reasonably clear manner, then complain when someone attempts to interpret what you said in a way that is relevant to the discussion, there seems to be little point in trying to discuss anything with you.

dogma wrote:That's not what I said. I said that Bush may have been easier to mock than Obama, which makes no comment on whether or not Obama is himself easy to mock. For someone that chastises others for not reading posts you certainly do a very poor job of it yourself.

I asserted that their mockability was approximately equal, which is simply a denial of what you said. I didn't say that you said anything different than what you actually said.

It appears that the two of you want to use an unimportant side comment to play silly semantic games, so have fun.

Bearers, you are distorting and ignoring reality.

The Daily Show regularly mocks Obama and other Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:[

sebster wrote:Oh, and his decision to take a conciliatory appoach to a very hostile opposition.

Heh. Seriously, it's effing hilarious that you believe this.

It's the truth. It's also hypocritical of you to get angry when I label an argument of yours in regards to a TV show "so wrong it's actually funny", then you employ the same type of mockery toward someone else on a more serious subject. It doesn't look good for your personal integrity or the honesty of your arguments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think when you're looking for reasons to be upset, you see them.

Your selective outrage is noted.

The idea that you think Polonius is being either selective or outraged isn't funny. It's genuinely sad. He's been extremely conciliatory and diplomatic with you, making every effort to engage you with honestly, patience, and respect. Your failure to engage him with equal respect, consideration, and intellectual integrity doesn't go unnoticed either.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Interpreting a sarcastic 'yes, that never happened' as 'that actually happened and you're overlooking it' is the most sensible interpretation of the statement. It is not interpreting it in 'an incredibly literal manner', it is simply interpreting it as an actual response to what I said instead of a complete non-sequitor. If you refuse to communicate in a reasonably clear manner, then complain when someone attempts to interpret what you said in a way that is relevant to the discussion, there seems to be little point in trying to discuss anything with you.

What?

Do you speak English in the home? Seriously, because your interpretation of what I said is just way out in left field.

Look, you obviously can't defend your original claim, that people make less fun of Obama because he's a Democrat, because obviously they made all kinds of fun about Clinton. You obviously don't want to consider the idea that maybe it's because there just isn't much fun to be had about Obama, unlike Bush and Clinton. Whatever, I'm kind of bored with trying to reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.

But don't pretend my original comment was in any way misleading. It may not have been literally exactly true, but the intent was clear, and would be clear to anyone who spent any time talking English.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
I asserted that their mockability was approximately equal, which is simply a denial of what you said. I didn't say that you said anything different than what you actually said.

Not really, no. I said that it is possible that Bush was easier to mock than Obama in order to dispute the idea that it was clearly Obama's Democratic affiliation which prompts, apparently, fewer jokes. I never said with any certainty that Bush was easier to mock than Obama. I'm not making a claim of any certainty, because quite honestly I do not have enough verified data to substantiate an argument either way.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
It appears that the two of you want to use an unimportant side comment to play silly semantic games, so have fun.

The funny thing about semantics is that, absent any sort of non-verbal communication (read: on the internet), they become very important.

Why are there so many more Democrat comedians than Republican?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why are there so many more Democrat comedians than Republican?

There is an old saying that Hell has the best house band. People who are shooting for the status quo and enshrining tradition tend to not be out on the edge and comedy usually comes from being out there on the fringe looking in on the circus and making comments.