Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > If You Have A White Friend...

If You Have A White Friend...
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2013, 01:50 PM
 
They clap like this, y'all!


Just reminiscing about 2008. I was highly entertained by that part.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 02:25 PM
 
So, did Barry and Michele's radical anti-white agenda ever materialize, or is it just coiled and waiting to strike?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, did Barry and Michele's radical anti-white agenda ever materialize, or is it just coiled and waiting to strike?
Like all of this administration's promises and implications, once he got the vote he didn't care what he said pre-election. I have to admit though, he was pretty effective getting 97% of the black vote.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 04:06 PM
 
What would that mean in this context?

He didn't claim to have a radical racial agenda, but when he got into office he did?

He did claim to have a radical racial agenda, but when he got into office he didn't?


I'm not sure what to say about black people comment. Most black people are Democrats.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not sure what to say about black people comment. Most black people are Democrats.
Exactly. The DEM presidential candidate routinely gets 95+% of the black vote. A notable exception is GWB who managed to peel off about 5% with his outreach to socially conservative black churches on the gay marriage issue.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 04:48 PM
 
Maybe Bush has a political future in France.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What would that mean in this context?

He didn't claim to have a radical racial agenda, but when he got into office he did?

He did claim to have a radical racial agenda, but when he got into office he didn't?


I'm not sure what to say about black people comment. Most black people are Democrats.
I wasn't really trying to say anything beyond my exact words - He was effective for whatever reason. My criticism was more about not fulfilling any of his campaign promises including transparency, bipartisanship and change. But hey, that's politics in general for you.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 05:29 PM
 
Well, that's where I guess I'm getting tangled.

This is an example of him actually following through on his claims.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I wasn't really trying to say anything beyond my exact words - He was effective for whatever reason. My criticism was more about not fulfilling any of his campaign promises including transparency, bipartisanship and change. But hey, that's politics in general for you.

Let's be real though, it's not as if you were ever going to turn around and like him anyway, no matter what he did or didn't do. You didn't like him well before the first election, everything that has transpired since has just been confirmation bias. I was the same way with Bush.

*That's* politics in general for you
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Let's be real though, it's not as if you were ever going to turn around and like him anyway, no matter what he did or didn't do. You didn't like him well before the first election, everything that has transpired since has just been confirmation bias. I was the same way with Bush.

*That's* politics in general for you
I won't disagree with you - though since his election in '08 my social views (NOT economic) have shifted away somewhat from the hard-right as I've been better able to articulate and define my philosophies as a whole. I think if you took my outlook now back in 08, i would have been less resistant to Obama's election. In the same breath, i'd be much more disappointed today as he's failed miserably on the front of individual's rights and the reduction of government corruption and shenanigans. My biggest problem is his escalation of such shenanigans, with particular interest in the precedents he is setting for future governments to push the envelope even further.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I won't disagree with you - though since his election in '08 my social views (NOT economic) have shifted away somewhat from the hard-right as I've been better able to articulate and define my philosophies as a whole. I think if you took my outlook now back in 08, i would have been less resistant to Obama's election. In the same breath, i'd be much more disappointed today as he's failed miserably on the front of individual's rights and the reduction of government corruption and shenanigans. My biggest problem is his escalation of such shenanigans, with particular interest in the precedents he is setting for future governments to push the envelope even further.

I never know how to respond to these sorts of sentiments, because I agree with them, but many times they seem like right-wing emotional frustration punching bag sort of rants where the intent is to blow off some steam with the least amount of blowback, and where these same sort of voices were coincidently tacet during the Bush administration.

In your case though, since you are generally not a Badkosh, I guess all I can say is that I agree with you on the individual rights thing. Without turning this into my own punching bag sort of post though, the real drag is that under a Republican administration individual rights would be, IMHO, equally or even more threatened with issues such as gay marriage. My point here is that I guess I get a little less riled up because it is a sad reality I've come to accept. I guess I can see this from your vantage point though, I'm guessing you feel that you are unhappy that Obama was elected, but you are even disappointed that he isn't at least doing something that you'd like that there is a higher probability of getting done under a Democrat presidents that tend to be less war hawkish and more for the common man, so to speak?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I never know how to respond to these sorts of sentiments, because I agree with them, but many times they seem like right-wing emotional frustration punching bag sort of rants where the intent is to blow off some steam with the least amount of blowback, and where these same sort of voices were coincidently tacet during the Bush administration.
Bess....Bush critics were anything but tacet. My rhetoric is no where even close to the same hemisphere as some of the most ardent Bush-haters. You and I both know that to be true.

In your case though, since you are generally not a Badkosh, I guess all I can say is that I agree with you on the individual rights thing. Without turning this into my own punching bag sort of post though, the real drag is that under a Republican administration individual rights would be, IMHO, equally or even more threatened with issues such as gay marriage. My point here is that I guess I get a little less riled up because it is a sad reality I've come to accept. I guess I can see this from your vantage point though, I'm guessing you feel that you are unhappy that Obama was elected, but you are even disappointed that he isn't at least doing something that you'd like that there is a higher probability of getting done under a Democrat presidents that tend to be less war hawkish and more for the common man, so to speak?
I try not to put everything in such a box. Republican or Democrat doesn't really make a difference to me - it's how you stand on the issues. My biggest problem with the American public is that politics for a great many have turned into a sports-style "my team vs yours." I reject that premise, and believe that each should be evaluated on the merit of their views. I'm not going to say that party doesn't matter - it does to a degree. I fail to see much difference between Obama and Bush - only that one has a way better PR machine at his disposal. Bush at least was honest about his views even when popularity turned against him, even though I disagreed vehemently with some of the things he did. I see Obama trying actively to silence the critics using dubious methods to evade responsibility. Being the commander-in-cheif and saying "Oh i don't know much about that [IRS scandal]" to me is just as bad, if not worse, then driving the corruption yourself. Ultimately, he is responsible for the actions his administration takes (who else would be?), and I don't see anything in him that says "I would like to get to the bottom of this and solve the issue." Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, AP wiretapping, you name it - Obama hasn't done anything to root out the corruption in his administration and that in it by itself makes him complicit, IMO. It's his job as the leader of the executive branch.

I've said before and I'll say again, Politics is quickly turning from a R vs D issue and becoming a "ruling class" vs "serfdom" argument. Much of the masses are ok with this as long as "their team" wins. I am not, and believe strongly that our government is becoming too powerful over ordinary citizens to sustain our society as free in the long-term.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Bess....Bush critics were anything but tacet. My rhetoric is no where even close to the same hemisphere as some of the most ardent Bush-haters. You and I both know that to be true.
Do you mean Obama-haters here, your second mention?

I don't know if you were here much during 2000-2008, but there were very few right wing guys in here that criticized Bush a whole lot, many more that defended him (particularly WRT the Iraq war), many that supported his re-election, and whatever right wing criticism existed paled in comparison to right wing Obama criticism before he was even elected the first time. I'm not saying this is you, I don't know either way, I'm just saying this is the way it goes with any president, so I sort of have to filter what I read accordingly.

I used to tease/criticize right wingers in here as needing to pick their battles a little better... If you remember the whole "look, Obama is eating the wrong kind of hot dog" election stuff you might remember my nonsense Still, I think this was absolutely true. Some of these real issues that concern you are falling upon deaf ears on the left because they have become absolutely numb from hearing right-wingers babble on incessantly about every little fart, and I know that right wingers were also numb to all of the Bush eviscerating too.

I try not to put everything in such a box. Republican or Democrat doesn't really make a difference to me - it's how you stand on the issues. My biggest problem with the American public is that politics for a great many have turned into a sports-style "my team vs yours." I reject that premise, and believe that each should be evaluated on the merit of their views. I'm not going to say that party doesn't matter - it does to a degree. I fail to see much difference between Obama and Bush - only that one has a way better PR machine at his disposal. Bush at least was honest about his views even when popularity turned against him, even though I disagreed vehemently with some of the things he did. I see Obama trying actively to silence the critics using dubious methods to evade responsibility. Being the commander-in-cheif and saying "Oh i don't know much about that [IRS scandal]" to me is just as bad, if not worse, then driving the corruption yourself. Ultimately, he is responsible for the actions his administration takes (who else would be?), and I don't see anything in him that says "I would like to get to the bottom of this and solve the issue." Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, AP wiretapping, you name it - Obama hasn't done anything to root out the corruption in his administration and that in it by itself makes him complicit, IMO. It's his job as the leader of the executive branch.
I agree, but I'd go even further than this to say that the entire system is tainted, including the system that puts people in office, keeps them there, virtually everything about the system. Complaining about one area of corruption is like zeroing on a few trees producing rotten apples when the entire orchard is that way.

I've said before and I'll say again, Politics is quickly turning from a R vs D issue and becoming a "ruling class" vs "serfdom" argument. Much of the masses are ok with this as long as "their team" wins. I am not, and believe strongly that our government is becoming too powerful over ordinary citizens to sustain our society as free in the long-term.
I definitely agree with this. I remember feeling this way during the Bush administration, except I thought of what he have (and still have) an aristocracy. I'm not trying to present myself as self-righteous here, my point is that sometimes it takes years before others see the righteousness or fallacy of ways of thinking, but time seems to have a way of making things clearer. The problem is, it also makes new things unclear, and by the time we are all on the same page it is often too late... Climate change (or whatever you want to call it) might be an example of an issue we might be too late for, and gay marriage an issue that just took its sweet time for us to all get on the same page with.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
At any rate, we could kill two birds with one stone by legalizing gay weed.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
 
Snow-i, regarding this idea that you moved away from the far-right on social issues, maybe the far-right just went even further to the right while you stayed put, not wanting to go along for the ride?

People that embrace the current far-right on social issues might as well be from Mars in terms of my understanding and appreciating their point of view on these issues.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i, regarding this idea that you moved away from the far-right on social issues, maybe the far-right just went even further to the right while you stayed put, not wanting to go along for the ride?
No, I still hold my personal views on some social issues. What's changed is to what degree the government should be regulating those things. Marriage is a great example. The government should not be saying either way -i.e. not be in the business of marriage at all. That way everyone is treated equally as they can choose whatever private institution they would like. I digress, but that is an example. Instead of choosing a side - I reject the premise that there even need to be two sides under the law considering spirit and letter of our constitution.

People that embrace the current far-right on social issues might as well be from Mars in terms of my understanding and appreciating their point of view on these issues.
They are just as bad as those who embrace the far-left on economic issues and might as well have been asleep during their business classes in terms of understanding the difference between wealth and money, and how that wealth is created (hint: it's not via governmental institutions and has little to do with money).
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
Just as bad?

That's the thing. I can cut somebody slack for falling asleep in school. Let's face it, economics is actually somewhat difficult and counter-intuitive.

I find it harder cut slack when it comes to falling asleep for basic human decency.


(Not you Snow-i. You seem to get it)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Just as bad?

That's the thing. I can cut somebody slack for falling asleep in school. Let's face it, economics is actually somewhat difficult and counter-intuitive.

I find it harder cut slack when it comes to falling asleep for basic human decency.


(Not you Snow-i. You seem to get it)


Exactly, and it's not hard to see that there are multiple economic theories, several of which have some evidence of working at various points in human history.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 06:10 PM
 
Oh yeah, they work...

FOR ME TO POOP ON!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Just as bad?

That's the thing. I can cut somebody slack for falling asleep in school. Let's face it, economics is actually somewhat difficult and counter-intuitive.

I find it harder cut slack when it comes to falling asleep for basic human decency.


(Not you Snow-i. You seem to get it)
I view that as a prerequisite to be qualified for any public office, and though there are many examples of a lackthereof, our society gets it pretty well compared to the rest of history.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Exactly, and it's not hard to see that there are multiple economic theories, several of which have some evidence of working at various points in human history.
This is beyond economics bess, this is basic human psychology.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I view that as a prerequisite to be qualified for any public office, and though there are many examples of a lackthereof, our society gets it pretty well compared to the rest of history.
I agree it's a requisite for politicians. I was only referring to the general public.

When it comes to how right we're getting it compared to the rest of history... that sort of feels like saying my computer now is better than most of the ones in history.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree it's a requisite for politicians. I was only referring to the general public.

When it comes to how right we're getting it compared to the rest of history... that sort of feels like saying my computer now is better than most of the ones in history.
Yes, and they will get better each and every year, won't they? That's my point. A healthy society economically and politically fosters an environment for us as humans to fine-tune our consistency in human decency.

The prevalence of human decency, IMO, is a symptom of a healthy society - not the other way around.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 10:17 PM
 
I agree with that, but I'm disturbed by how those on the right seem to lag behind those on left by about a generation in this regard.

If you support gay rights, legalization of drugs, freedom of choice (at least from a philosophical standpoint), legalization of prostitution, and that the state shouldn't have the right to execute you, your choices on the right get mighty thin.

Of course, add the right to bear arms to this and then you're ****ed out of both sides.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 10:21 PM
 
Of course, what really galls me is these should be core values of the Republican party, but instead they'd rather act like a bunch of goddamn communist vermin.

I spit on them.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree with that, but I'm disturbed by how those on the right seem to lag behind those on left by about a generation in this regard.

If you support gay rights, legalization of drugs, freedom of choice (at least from a philosophical standpoint), legalization of prostitution, and that the state shouldn't have the right to execute you, your choices on the right get mighty thin.

Of course, add the right to bear arms to this and then you're ****ed out of both sides.

Who opposes the right to bear arms? Nobody... It's just the "right to bear any kind of arm you want" that is at question.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2013, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree with that, but I'm disturbed by how those on the right seem to lag behind those on left by about a generation in this regard.
I am too. It's sad really... If Republicans could go true constitutional on social issues we'd all be better off for it.

If you support gay rights, legalization of drugs, freedom of choice (at least from a philosophical standpoint), legalization of prostitution, and that the state shouldn't have the right to execute you, your choices on the right get mighty thin.
I support gay rights in the sense that I support everyone's right to do as they please. I'm not big on treating groups differently for any reason (good or bad) and i don't feel the need to go PC to support my neighbors. The friction in this sense comes from a government institution that has long outlasted its purpose and should be written out of law and into the private landscape where people are free to do as they please. I am for legalizing pot as i believe it's only net detrimental effect on the society comes from it's huge black market. Other drugs may have net detrimental effects because of their very nature, so each needs its own discussion. I am very for freedom of choice, undecided on prostitution (both sides have convincing arguments), and pro* death penalty.

*Needs major reform and a higher standard of proof such as beyond *any* doubt as well as addition checks and balances to ensure the state can't execute without an enhanced due process that leverages today's tech as well as eliminates any doubt. A simple guilty verdict to a capital offense isn't enough for me. I actually believe a separate trial with a separate jury should be held to decide between life w/o parole and death in capital cases.

Of course, add the right to bear arms to this and then you're ****ed out of both sides.
Tell me about it . If the republicans could at least get current with social issues I believe they would wipe the floor with liberal democrats for a term and we would see a decrease in partisanship overall.

But no, we're stuck with the Akin's of the world. I think his comment was the single biggest incident of idiocy I've seen in my adult life - at the least the one that enraged me the most.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2013, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Who opposes the right to bear arms? Nobody... It's just the "right to bear any kind of arm you want" that is at question.
You want to take mah guns Pierce!

1776...

MURDER PILLS!


(Will make more serious response shortly)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2013, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Who opposes the right to bear arms? Nobody... It's just the "right to bear any kind of arm you want" that is at question.
I'm actually having trouble coming up with a serious response to this quite honestly.

Okay, I'll try.

There's a primary philosophical difference at play, and while people within one faction may have differing policy ideas, the philosophies themselves are pretty cut and dried.

One faction thinks it's a good idea to nerf the Constitution, and the other faction does not.

You can think of my use of the RTBA as shorthand for that.



Because that's FREEDOM, Pierce!

(Couldn't help it)
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2