The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

?? Does it matter how long ago it was?

It does when you claim that you can't rehabilitate after doing something like that.

That's horse gak... the really stinky kind.

There's no statute of limitation on these kinds of things. Wiki is a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Especially since he remains largely unrepentent (oh, he'll hem and haw about it... ), facts of the matter, he participated in actual BOMBINGS of Federal buildings and Banks to sow fear.

Let me repeat myself. He:

BOMBED...

BUILDINGS...

IN...

THE...

USofA.

feth him.

And any politicians worth their salt would NOT have any associations with him. That's my point to peregrine's earlier question.

You don't "rehabilitate" from that and you *shouldn't* have someone like this near your political party.

But, the state of Obama supporters (and Bill Clinton's)... ya'll be like:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

?? Does it matter how long ago it was? Shoot man, the Weather Underground group admitted to at least 20+ bombing across the US.

If memory serves me right, the one the blew up in their faces (taking his GF) was intended for some dance hall frequented by the military.

But, let's chalk that up as a youthful exuberance in an anti-war climate...

Okay, let's say Ayers was a gigantic influence on Obama. What policies has he advocated that would suit Ayers's needs or desires or political goals? Has the Weather Underground made some sort of insurgance that I haven't seen in the last eight, or twenty five years? No? What policies were the underground pushing towards that Obama has advanced? I guess I don't know, and considering myself, as you do, as politically informed, I think that should say something.

I was answering Peregrine's question...

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Now you know how I feel about Obama!

So, are you actually going to provide some evidence of Obama endorsing the execution of people for the "crime" of failing to obey his religion's rules? Or is this the exact "they're both the same" nonsense I was referring to?

**Breotan**

More fun news, if it is true.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/11/clinton-goes-after-laugh-factory-comedians-for-making-fun-of-her/

Clinton Goes after Laugh Factory Comedians for Making Fun of Her

In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club.

A video of the short performance, which is less than three minutes, is posted on the website of the renowned club, Laugh Factory, and the Clinton campaign has tried to censor it. Besides demanding that the video be taken down, the Clinton campaign has demanded the personal contact information of the performers that appear in the recording. This is no laughing matter for club owner Jamie Masada, a comedy guru who opened Laugh Factory more than three decades ago and has been instrumental in launching the careers of many famous comics. “They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

Practically all of the country’s most acclaimed comedians have performed at the Laugh Factory and undoubtedly they have offended politicians and other well-known personalities with their standup routines. Tim Allen, Jay Leno, Roseanne Bar, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Jim Carrey, Martin Lawrence, Jerry Seinfeld and George Lopez are among the big names that have headlined at the Laugh Factory. The First Amendment right to free speech is a crucial component of the operation, though Masada drew the line a few years ago banning performers—including African Americans—from using the “n-word” in their acts.

The five short performances that Clinton wants eliminated include some profanity and portions could be considered crass, but some of the lines are funny and that’s what the Laugh Factory is all about. The video features the individual acts of five comedians, four men and a woman. The skits make fun of Clinton’s wardrobe, her age, sexual orientation, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the former First Lady’s relationship with her famous husband. The Laugh Factory has appropriately titled it “Hillary vs. The First Amendment.”

Masada told Judicial Watch that, as soon as the video got posted on the Laugh Factory website, he received a phone call from a “prominent” person inside Clinton’s campaign. “He said the video was disgusting and asked who put me up to this,” Masada said. The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video. Masada refused and hung up. He insists that the comedy stage is a sanctuary for freedom of speech no matter who is offended. “Just last night we had (Emmy-award winner) Dana Carvey doing Donald Trump and it was hilarious,” Masada said.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" after doing something like that...

When was the last time Ayers blew something up?

?? Does it matter how long ago it was?

It does when you claim that you can't rehabilitate after doing something like that.

That's horse gak... the really stinky kind.

So you either don't know the definition of rehabilitation or this is just another one of those fun areas where you use your own definition just because it makes you feel better about whatever point it is you think you are making.

**Gordon Shumway**

Fair enough, care to answer mine Whembly, or care to dodge it some more while you do some research on talking points to grasp at straws? Since you claim Obama was so influenced by Ayers, certainly you have something in the last seven years to substantiate those claims...

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:

So you either don't know the definition of rehabilitation or this is just another one of those fun areas where you use your own definition just because it makes you feel better about whatever point it is you think you are making.

*opens up a browser tab*

*types 'define rehabilitate'*

*reads:

rehabilitate
[ree-huh-bil-i-teyt, ree-uh-]
verb (used with object), rehabilitated, rehabilitating.
1.
to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like.
2.
to restore to good condition, operation, or management, as a bankrupt business.
3.
to reestablish the good reputation of (a person, one's character or name, etc.).
4.
to restore formally to former capacity, standing, rank, rights, or privileges.

*

*sees #3*

*whembly stands by his previous post

*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough, care to answer mine Whembly, or care to dodge it some more while you do some research on talking points to grasp at straws?

You're asking a different question.

I was responding to Peregrine's... did you miss it?

**Gordon Shumway**

So you don't care to answer mine? What am I not good enough? Or you don't have an answer? Edit: I can repeat the gist if you want: what policies has Obama advocated or advanced that has promoted Ayers's political goals? An answer would be nice considering you have attacked him for being so close to Ayers. You know who else liked to throw bombs for no good reason? The Weather Underground. See,ms like you have more in common with them than the big O

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't care to answer mine? What am I not good enough? Or you don't have an answer? Edit: I can repeat the gist if you want: what policies has Obama advocated or advanced that has promoted Ayers's political goals? An answer would be nice considering you have attacked him for being so close to Ayers.

Don't even waste your time. The truth is that Obama is not and has never been close to Bill Ayers. However, as he has proven time and time again, the truth doesn't really matter unless it aligns with his bias.

This is how things like this play out:

He makes extraordinary claim
People call him out on it
He puffs up and gets defensive while dismissing anything he doesn't already think and not actually backing the original claim up
People call him out on that
He ignores it
People call him out again
He ignores that
He moves on

He's pretty much a living case study on confirmation bias. (By the way, I chose that link because I'm reading his book right now and it's really good!)

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

You don't "rehabilitate" from that and you *shouldn't* have someone like this near your political party.

Given that Ayers hasn't bombed any buildings since then, it seems as though he has rehabilitated. You don't seem to understand what the word "rehabilitated" means.

Whether or not someone like Ayers should be near a political party is a matter opinion, but its worth noting that he isn't a particularly important figure in Chicago, and certainly has nothing to do with the national Democratic Party.

**Gordon Shumway**

Nah, I'll give ole whem the benefit of the doubt here. He wouldn't actually make inflammatory remarks without a rational reason for doing so. That's, that's just Trump territory. And we all know how much he hates the trumpster.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

rehabilitate
[ree-huh-bil-i-teyt, ree-uh-]
verb (used with object), rehabilitated, rehabilitating.
1.
to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like.
2.
to restore to good condition, operation, or management, as a bankrupt business.
3.
to reestablish the good reputation of (a person, one's character or name, etc.).
4.
to restore formally to former capacity, standing, rank, rights, or privileges.
*

*sees #3*

*whembly stands by his previous post *

Dictionary definitions are ranked in order of significance. If your argument hinges on the third definition in a dictionary entry, one which I suspect you didn't know about until just now given your usage of inverted commas around the word "rehabilitated", then it is in serious trouble.

**Gordon Shumway**

Deleted due to irrelevance to the conversation at hand.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't care to answer mine? What am I not good enough? Or you don't have an answer? Edit: I can repeat the gist if you want: what policies has Obama advocated or advanced that has promoted Ayers's political goals? An answer would be nice considering you have attacked him for being so close to Ayers. You know who else liked to throw bombs for no good reason? The Weather Underground. See,ms like you have more in common with them than the big O

*I* have more in common with WU?

Yeah... I don't think so.

WU is a far left, anti-war, anti-white privlege organization.

Sounds very much like Obama's and modern liberalism's ideology.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

rehabilitate
[ree-huh-bil-i-teyt, ree-uh-]
verb (used with object), rehabilitated, rehabilitating.
1.
to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like.
2.
to restore to good condition, operation, or management, as a bankrupt business.
3.
to reestablish the good reputation of (a person, one's character or name, etc.).
4.
to restore formally to former capacity, standing, rank, rights, or privileges.
*

*sees #3*

*whembly stands by his previous post *

Dictionary definitions are ranked in order of significance. If your argument hinges on the third definition in a dictionary entry, one which I suspect you didn't know about until just now given your usage of inverted commas around the word "rehabilitated", then it is in serious trouble.

Keep picking on that "thread" to pull the tapestry apart.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't care to answer mine? What am I not good enough? Or you don't have an answer? Edit: I can repeat the gist if you want: what policies has Obama advocated or advanced that has promoted Ayers's political goals? An answer would be nice considering you have attacked him for being so close to Ayers.

Don't even waste your time. The truth is that Obama is not and has never been close to Bill Ayers. However, as he has proven time and time again, the truth doesn't really matter unless it aligns with his bias.

This is how things like this play out:

He makes extraordinary claim
People call him out on it
He puffs up and gets defensive while dismissing anything he doesn't already thing and not actually backing the original claim up
People call him out on that
He ignores it
People call him out again
He ignores that
He moves on

He's pretty much a living case study on confirmation bias. (By the way, I chose that link because I'm reading his book right now and it's really good!)

I find that laughable man.

I've backed up plenty.

Ironically, you keep saying that you don't really *like* Obama, but everytime his honor appears to be impugned, you attempt to save the day.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
hat's, that's just Trump territory. And we all know how much he hates the trumpster.

You ain't kidding...

Although, I think I figured out his appeal...

**Gordon Shumway**

So, are you actually going to answer the question of what policies Obama has advocated that has promoted Ayers's political goals or are you just going to throw rhetorical bombs and dodge, because right now, it sounds like the latter. Generic panaceas of "far left" don't cut it when you make such specific claims to political connections, sorry. As to "anti war" and "anti white privilege", welcome to the 20th century. Or are you pro war and pro white privlidge?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't care to answer mine? What am I not good enough? Or you don't have an answer? Edit: I can repeat the gist if you want: what policies has Obama advocated or advanced that has promoted Ayers's political goals? An answer would be nice considering you have attacked him for being so close to Ayers.

Don't even waste your time. The truth is that Obama is not and has never been close to Bill Ayers. However, as he has proven time and time again, the truth doesn't really matter unless it aligns with his bias.

This is how things like this play out:

He makes extraordinary claim
People call him out on it
He puffs up and gets defensive while dismissing anything he doesn't already thing and not actually backing the original claim up
People call him out on that
He ignores it
People call him out again
He ignores that
He moves on

He's pretty much a living case study on confirmation bias. (By the way, I chose that link because I'm reading his book right now and it's really good!)

I find that laughable man.

Oh right, I forgot to add the part with you claim you're being persecuted. Silly me!

I've backed up plenty.

Ironically, you keep saying that you don't really *like* Obama, but everytime his honor appears to be impugned, you attempt to save the day.

No, I have a low tolerance for bs regardless of what form it takes.

I know you have this weird duality outlook where anyone that disagrees with some of the stupid you things you say means they believe the exact opposite, but seriously... it isn't the case. It is possible to not like someone (Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, etc.) but also to know that Obama isn't Weather Underground sympathizer because he has a casual acquaintanceship with a former domestic terrorist, Hillary Clinton isn't the personification of evil who went out of her way to make sure people died in Benghazi, and Bernie Sanders doesn't want to transform the USA into Cold War-era Soviet Russia because he went there once in the late 1980s.

It's almost like you don't realize that there are more than two positions on any giver matter.

**whembly**

Scooty... this is an example of you playing "whack-a-whembly".

Why?

I directly answered Peregrine's question... and now everyone's in a hissy fit.

And to clarify I know that "Obama isn't Weather Underground sympathizer because he has a casual acquaintanceship with a former domestic terrorist".

But, he has an association.

**Peregrine**

But you didn't answer my question, at least not very well. Obama having a very loose association with that guy many years ago is not really the same as republican presidential candidates appearing at a horrifying "we should have the death penalty for being gay" conference in 2015. This isn't a case of some awkward past that certain people might like to forget, with arguments about what degree of reform and repentance may exist, it's what they're doing right now.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
So, are you actually going to answer the question of what policies Obama has advocated that has promoted Ayers's political goals or are you just going to throw rhetorical bombs and dodge, because right now, it sounds like the latter. Generic panaceas of "far left" don't cut it when you make such specific claims to political connections, sorry. As to "anti war" and "anti white privilege", welcome to the 20th century. Or are you pro war and pro white privlidge?

No because I haven't stated that Obama promoted Ayer's goals.

Peregrine is playing the 'guilt by association' game.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Peregrine is playing the 'guilt by association' game.

No, I'm making the very reasonable assumption that if a candidate appears at an event and is praised and introduced by the host of that event then they probably agree with the content of the event. This is not just a case of "one time he was in the same room as a horrible person".

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Scooty... this is an example of you playing "whack-a-whembly".

Why?

Because you say ridiculous things and then when someone notices it and calls you out on it, you claim they're playing "whack-a-whembly."

You're not a victim, so stop pretending to be one.

And to clarify I know that "Obama isn't Weather Underground sympathizer because he has a casual acquaintanceship with a former domestic terrorist".

But, he has an association.

Yeah... and?

My best friend is a convicted felon who did jail time for selling drugs. You know what that says about me? Nothing. It says absolutely nothing.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yeah... and?

So... our President is associated with Ayers, Rev. Wright and other shady figures in Chicago. The majority Obama voters are like:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'll tell you what... there isn't much room left under that bus.

My best friend is a convicted felon who did jail time for selling drugs. You know what that says about me? Nothing. It says absolutely nothing.

Yeah agreed. You friend isn't the same as a dude who admitted in participating in bombing 20+ federal/bank buildings to sow terror.

No comparison dude.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Peregrine is playing the 'guilt by association' game.

No, I'm making the very reasonable assumption that if a candidate appears at an event and is praised and introduced by the host of that event then they probably agree with the content of the event. This is not just a case of "one time he was in the same room as a horrible person".

Ayers and Obama worked together!

On the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), ACORN, Developing Communities Project...

It more than a case of "one time he was in the same room as a horrible person". Shoot... you can find actual interviews from Ayers, like this one:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/03/exclusive-bill-ayers-on-the-weathermen-obama-s-crap-job-more.html
“David Axelrod said we were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was “a guy around the neighborhood,” that was true. Today, I wish I knew him better and he was listening to me. Obama’s not a radical. I wish he were, but he’s not.”

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
“David Axelrod said we were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was “a guy around the neighborhood,” that was true. Today, I wish I knew him better and he was listening to me. Obama’s not a radical. I wish he were, but he’s not.”

Did you even read your own quote? The guy is explicitly saying that he didn't have very strong ties in the past, and has no influence with him in the present. Can you really not see how this is different from the "kill all the gay people" preacher introducing republican presidential candidates in 2015 and endorsing them by saying "god approves of this man"?

**BlaxicanX**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

He puffs up and gets defensive while dismissing anything he doesn't already thing and not actually backing the original claim up

whembly wrote:
Scooty... this is an example of you playing "whack-a-whembly".

Why?

I directly answered Peregrine's question... and now everyone's in a hissy fit.

Holy gak.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
“David Axelrod said we were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was “a guy around the neighborhood,” that was true. Today, I wish I knew him better and he was listening to me. Obama’s not a radical. I wish he were, but he’s not.”

Did you even read your own quote? The guy is explicitly saying that he didn't have very strong ties in the past, and has no influence with him in the present. Can you really not see how this is different from the "kill all the gay people" preacher introducing republican presidential candidates in 2015 and endorsing them by saying "god approves of this man"?

Seems like they're both equally distant from the individuals in question.

I'm sure Obama shook this guys hand a few times and appeared at events he was involved in. Not really any different from the situation Carson is in.

The difference is, this guy actually physically acted out on his radical beliefs. These "kill all gays" people are highly unlikely to do so. Such a law would never gain meaningful traction and I don't see any lynch mobs roaming the streets killing gays either.

**Ouze**

BlaxicanX wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

He puffs up and gets defensive while dismissing anything he doesn't already thing and not actually backing the original claim up
whembly wrote:
Scooty... this is an example of you playing "whack-a-whembly".

Why?

I directly answered Peregrine's question... and now everyone's in a hissy fit.
Holy gak.

They're all bad bro

**Peregrine**

edit: double post

edit again: and now the forum removes the double post, leaving only this. Sigh. There was an argument here but I'm too lazy to re-type it.

**Grey Templar**

So one guy who did some stuff over a decade ago is proof that this is worse? Its not even someone who was at this convention. Has anyone at this convention participated in terrorism and direct murder? No? Then there really isn't an equivalency.

I'm not saying either is ok, just saying that both are equally bad/not good/whatever this is.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
So one guy who did some stuff over a decade ago is proof that this is worse?

No, it's proof that the "kill gay people" extremists are not harmless, and the idea that nobody could ever turn those ideas into violence is simply wrong. The reason the current incident is worse than Obama's past is what I said previously: it's a more direct association, and it's current events.

**Grey Templar**

But again, have any of these people actually done anything beyond blow hot air?

From what I know about the time these incidents took place with Obama, they were also current events at the time. its not like when Obama was associating with this terrorist he was long retired and de-radicalized.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
But again, have any of these people actually done anything beyond blow hot air?

These specific people? No. But similar extremists have, so you can't just dismiss it as harmless talk.

From what I know about the time these incidents took place with Obama, they were also current events at the time. its not like when Obama was associating with this terrorist he was long retired and de-radicalized.

See previous quote where the guy explicitly says "I have no influence with Obama, and I wish I did so he'd follow my beliefs". The actual bombings (which were specifically intended to cause property damage, not kill people, if you believe him) were way back in the 1970s. And by the time Obama was elected he had expressed remorse for even that. So yeah, I think there's a pretty big difference between "we smashed some property to stop the war 30 years ago" and "Jesus says kill everyone who is gay, and let me introduce a Jesus-approved candidate".

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Keep picking on that "thread" to pull the tapestry apart.

I didn't realize the argument "Bill Ayers was a terrorist, and that makes him bad." constituted the argumentative equivalent of a tapestry.

whembly wrote:

So... our President is associated with Ayers, Rev. Wright and other shady figures in Chicago.

I wouldn't characterize Wright or Ayers as shady given that neither of them is really attempting to hide anything. Controversial, sure, but not shady.

Regardless, what other "shady figures" is Obama associated with?