“I thought to myself, if a Princeton and Harvard-educated professional woman doesn’t know how to adequately feed her kids, then what are other parents going through who don’t have access to the information I have?” she recalled. (Breitbart)
***
What was the problem with Palin again?
149 comments:
Michelle and Kerry are like Chatty Cathy.
It's surprising how low the quality of Obama's Cabinet has been. Off hand Gates, Petraeus and Panetta have been the only three that seemed like they could find their ass with both hands if you gave them a two hand head start.
I think Michelle is trying to establish a little street cred.
You know, like, I grew up ghetto!
Of course, she didn't. She was very well connected and prosperous from birth.
Connected to the Jackson machine in Chicago.
Perhaps I shouldn't make light of the situation. But then again, what difference, at this point, does it make?
Kerry had a face lift and possibly botox. It's good to have friends in high places - Hollywood and Pelosi.
Michelle quite possibly could be more out of touch than her husband.
If you want kids to eat healthy -that starts at home. The state, food stamp dependence and increased poverty are not exactly good parents.
The Wrath of Grapes.
Let them eat no cake!
I know low info voters that to this day think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house."
I'm all in favor of healthier children but Michelle Obama's sales pitch makes me want to puke.
Hey! That's it!
Teach the little fatties how to become bulemics!!!!
Give a kid a healthy meal and she'll be slim for a day.
Teach her how to puke at will and she'll be slim for life!!!
Paraphrased from Office Space because I can't find the exact quote:
Peter: I'm going to see this hypnotherapist that helped my girlfriend lose weight.
Samir: Peter, your girlfriend is anorexic.
Peter: Yeah! He's really good!
How much you want to bet this Administration could screw up the puking idea if they STARTED with a bunch of bulemics?
Libruls like the First Lady see every problem as a nail and the federal govt as a hammer [I am , of course, paraphrasing her dumbass husband].
I'll give the First Lady half a break on her realization that feeding kids isn't just pop a tart in the toaster. We didn't have that problem when I was a kid, there was rationing, scarcity, and everything, with few exceptions,was from scratch. Both Mothers and Fathers knew how to cook and feed healthy kids.
Where Mrs. Obama goes off the rails reverts right back to her education...that government can make laws that will fix everything....that government, via the education system, must step in and take over for ignorant parents by edict.
She immediately forgot her own personal revelation of her own ignorance, even with high levels of education. My guess, just that, is that she really cured the issue by hiring a long string of Nannys and care takers.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is a pathological born liar who cannot help lying repeatedly. Very similar to his predecessor in his current position. However I reserve my deepest dislike for Kerry, because of the kinds of lies he told and swore to in fact.
Without raising taxes, demolish the public school teacher union strangle hold on the flow of public funding to education and re-introduce home-economics and cooking classes back into education.
Some nanny state I could live with.
JAL....I agree it is bullshit. What I left out and should have included was that I believe Mrs. Obama invented the "personal revelation story" in order to introduce once again her real design...government managing everything doncha know. I was part of that government for a long time and I will swear anywhere that it can barely manage latrine detail. Seriously.
And why on earth would she think she had to go to Princeton (she left that out ... she played The Big Card) and Harvard to "learn" how to feed her kids?
What did her mother do? Feed her crap food? ("Hey, BTW,thanks mom, you were an idiot when you raised Craig and me.")
OT...WTF is going on with Blogger. I did NOT post the same thing three times.
JAL ... if you notice it, Mrs. Obama's mother lives in the White House with her even now. Wonder who spends more time with the kids?
Why doesn't she shut up and take care of her girls. (Wait -- 15 year old Malia is in California with the COOL people! {Hollywood is truly a maloiugnant community, IMHO])
I am sorry. I am so done with being polite and respectful to these people. [<--- raciiiiist!!111!!! -- Nope they could be Swedes for all I know]
The world is going to hell in a handbasket and she doesn't give a damn about kids.
If she did she wouldn't worry about the children making bad food choices (in a food controlled environment -- public school) and wonder how the hell 10s of thousands of Children from Central America are being hauled **through** Mexico (it's hot there... just got back) and dumped on the southwest US border to break the law.
Where are *their* parents??? What were they being fed while they were cattle hauled through Mexico? WHO paid for this transportation?
Hey!! HASHTAG IT!!
Moochelle probably never fixed her girls as much as a PB&J, but she knows exactly what kids will eat because the government can ram it down their throats.
Michelle quite possibly could be more out of touch than her husband.
This is why she is being pushed to run for a senate seat after she leaves the White House.
Potentially the most expensive, in terms of dollar cost and early loss of life, hubris-powered pain machine in America will end up being the Food Pyramid. The effects are generational.
These folks in government don't give a shit whether you die or not, fat or slim.
They need to make sure their ox is Gored not gored.
And if they pass prohibition, the United States will poison to their death 10,000 of its own citizens (subsubjects) as a lesson to the others, as it has before.
Poisoned knowledge is in over 300 million Americans now.
I would suggest PB&J, but you might as well bring a gun to school as a peanut now a days.
“I thought to myself, if a Princeton and Harvard-educated professional woman doesn’t know how to adequately feed her kids, then what are other parents going through who don’t have access to the information I have?”
On many levels it makes sense that grade schools could comprehend what is beyond the ability of Princeton and Harvard grads to put into action.
There are quotes about this:
You'd have to be an intellectual to believe something that stupid.
I'd rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard.
Actually, much of God and Man at Yale could be considered in light of children making more informed, better decisions than Harvard grads.
Sorry fellas I messed up.
I meant "grade school students" and wrote "grade schools."
Looks like I get another "F" today for a grade.
And what did Palin say about Russia?
AllenS said...
"And what did Palin say about Russia?"
Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"
"After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Sen. Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."
~Sarah Palin, Oct. 21, 2008
Today it's Brazil vs. Mexico, at 3:00 pm EST.
I'll make it a point to eat something nutritious while watching, and I'll make sure to think of the first lady while doing so.
We'll start off with one of these bad boys, which should help somewhat to alleviate some of the pain associated with that last part.
If Moochelle was truly interested in children getting a healthy diet**, she would be stumping for removing EBT cards and giving people actual food/commodities and mandatory classes on cooking and home economics starting in junior high or high school.
EBT card holders buy the worst crap ever for themselves and their children. I see them in front of me a the stores. Baskets full of chips, sugary cereals, frozen dinners, sodas and hardly ever any fresh meat, vegetables or ingredients to actually cook a meal. With the exception of the hispanics in our area who are evidently very good cooks.
The EBT card amount should be very small and people should be given an allotment of meat, vegetables (canned or frozen are good too) fruits, milk, cheese, bread and a starter kit of cooking ingredients oils, salt, pepper, spices......the basics. Don't like it. TOO EFFING BAD. Get a job and buy your own food.
**BTW: The definition of what is a healthy diet has changed at least three times in my lifetime. From high carb to low carb. From high fat to low fat back to higher fat allowed. Salt too much, don't salt, wait...salt is needed. Butter bad use margarine, margarine is bad butter is better. Gaaaah. I just ignore them and eat what I want and what I like (in moderation) including eggs over easy. Take that food nazis.
Pogo....for the Thread Win!
mmmm Eggs over easy on buttered toast - smothered in good green chile sauce and a little melted cheese. An easy, economical and nutritional breakfast.
POGO - LOLOLOL. That's my new religion.
This weekend I had breakfast out at a nice restaurant at our local golf course.
Blackened catfish crispy on the outside spicy and not overcooked. A little dab of salsa on the side. More spicy. Eggs over easy done perfectly so that when you break the yolks they softly flow around on the plate. Sweet potato (actually yams)fries. Freshly made english muffins slathered in butter. The guy makes them fresh every day. Orange marmalade, home made by the restaurant owner not processed commercially. Freshly squeezed ice cold orange juice. MMMMMMMM good.
We sat on the deck under the awnings and watched the golfers taking off on the first tee and admired the pond on the 10th that has a pretty natural look fountain make of lava rocks and plants in the middle. Very pretty day. Some people were drinking Mimosas or Bloody Marys. Too early for me. I would be napping before noon.
Later we took a drive in our 1972 K5 Blazer and burned up a lot of gasoline at 12 to 13 mpg taking a leisurely Sunday drive through the forests that surround us. Need to keep that carbon footprint up...doncha know. Later we BBQed a couple of ribeyes...more carbon footprint....and consumed a few cocktails.
Good food. Wasting gasoline on something fun. Spewing carbon into the air!
I'm sure that Moooooochelle would not approve. She can stuff it where the sun don't shine. I think that she has a loot of room.
" I think that she has a loot of room. "
Projection.
"I think that she has a loot of room."
Now we know where to look for Lois Lerner's emails.
Rabel, if it comes to that, I'm drinking castor oil every day.
"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"
Is there more to this quote or are you Modo-ing on us Larry?
I always name-drop my Ivy League education when I talk about breakfast.
Petraeus and Panetta have been the only three that seemed like they could find their ass with both hands if you gave them a two hand head start.
Petraeus was too busy finding someone else's ass.
Actually, I think she was after his.
Meade said...
And what did Palin say about Russia?
Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"
Believe it or don't, there's a pair of islands off the Seward Peninsula that look to be about 10 miles or less apart, one in the US, one in Russia. I imagine on a clear day day, you can see Vlad's backdoor.
So she's not dumb, as some would like to think.
EMD said…
Craig and I. Did she get anything right?
"Craig and me" is correct. Objecdt v. subject pronouns.
Being a grammar nazi is hazardous work.
Pogo: I Am Ironing Man said...
Now we know where to look for Lois Lerner's emails.
Humor aside :) .... I know exactly where to look for Mz Lerner's files and I'd be happy to do so if I was given a new CAC card and access to the SSID's necessary, AND if could choose my assistants. I have specific people from the Army IT world, a Revenue Officer from the IRS itself, and an particularly adept and thorough auditor from DOD-IG-Financial. I'd put the DOD-IG Finance guy in charge, in fact, because he is absolutely incorruptible. I've worked with all of the people I've cited abstractly...there really are government people with both honesty and skills.
Give us 4 free reign and we'll deliver you the missing emails.
edutcher....those islands are the Diomedes.
When his nibs asked the question, I presumed he wanted a germane political comment she made, which I quoted at 10:42 AM today.
My only objection to Sarah Palin was back in the days she let her advisors tell her to make stuff up. (Think the great caribou hunting trip with her dad, et al ad infinitum) She has since corrected that error. As she is today I'd vote for her tomorrow as I did when she was running with McCain. I had "issues" with both, but the opposition was such anathema to me that I had to give the guy who was a POW in my war the vote...as I would have Jeremiah Denton, or James Stockdale, had he run on his own without Perot.
Ari, one of the maps I looked at named them, but I just wanted to make the point.
Her personal struggle helped her launch her mission to address childhood obesity, she explains, especially passing a law requiring schools to provide healthier meals for kids.
If only she had picked up at Princeton and Harvard that the wife of a president does not make laws. If only she had been taught how American government is designed to work. If only she were actually capable of learning, but then she wouldn't be a Democrat, the catch basin for those resolute in not learning a goddamn thing.
Please.
Nobody elected you, even as you imagine they did. Even if your supporters have you thinks so.
Learn to feed yourself, you cow. And your family's meals can follow from that. But that is not what we see.
And if Republicans are not giving you a hard time then they're not doing their own jobs in checking your fierce and ugly and obvious megalomania.
edutcher said...
Meade said...
Ed is now Elaine.
If only she had picked up at Princeton and Harvard that the wife of a president does not make laws.
I suppose none of the other first ladies advocated legislation.
phx said...
I suppose none of the other first ladies advocated legislation.
I think they just said no.
"[Pat Nixon] was an advocate of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, a bill that encouraged volunteerism by providing benefits to a number of volunteer organizations"
wikipedia
"[Lady Bird Johnson] became the first president's wife to advocate actively for legislation"
Wikipedia
But, we can only spread our fingers and say of Michelle... "If only she were actually capable of learning, but then she wouldn't be a Democrat, the catch basin for those resolute in not learning a goddamn thing."
Edutcher .... I figured you knew what islands were involved, I just wanted to cut the clown of the moment off at the knees so he couldn't come back and mock with some spurious detail.
Phx .... I can only evaluate Mrs Obama based upon whom she married. You have to admit her metaphor was humorous at best...for a woman who still lives with her mother.
Say, phx ARM, do either of you doubt that the capture of the Benghazi embassy guy who has been living openly in Libya since the attack was timed based on domestic political concerns.
Would it bother you if it was?
Betty Ford and the ERA.
Why is it such a horrible thing that Michelle advocates for her cause du jour?
Don't make me have to ask Crack.
Alaska and Russia essentially share a border, which is relevant and interesting in that those of us in the lower 48 tend to think of Russia as on the far side of the world. Governors on border states with Mexico would be assumed to have familiarity with border issues, labor, whatever... Similarly to politicians from New Mexico having first hand opinions of federal policies involving Mexico and governors dealing directly, Palin had experience with international relations, mostly dealing with oil issues, with Canada... AND Russia.
Proximity was and is relevant there.
Alaska is also covering the early alert *stuff* with Russia that might not be such a huge deal post Reagan, but hasn't gone away either. And the Governor is the CiC of the Air National Guard.
That the media was not interested in actually examining the foreign experience honestly and admitting that Palin, the VP candidate, made Obama look Junior League... is not surprising. Her experience was *thin*... his was *invisible*.
That supposed intelligent adults can't stretch their minds to so much as attempt to understand the importance of being the governor of a border state is a personal failing.
Being told what to eat or told how to parent (You're doing it wrong!) is extremely irritating.
I do have the smallest bit of sympathy because it's clear that she tried (or was told) to chose a cause to promote that was apolitical and since I can't think of an obvious better choice, maybe that's the best there was.
Laura Bush already took child literacy, right?
But *dang* if it's not like nagging, nagging and more nagging.
Phx .... I still find her story about not knowing how to feed her kids funny, given, as I said, that she still lives with her mother.
How often does this woman feed her own children, or cook meals for her family in the Fucking White House?
Rabel said...
Say, phx ARM, do either of you doubt that the capture of the Benghazi embassy guy who has been living openly in Libya since the attack was timed based on domestic political concerns.
Let's concede the premise. Why do it now if it is for political purposes? Things are going pretty well for the Dems and it is still a long way until the election, given the electorates memory span.
That supposed intelligent adults can't stretch their minds to so much as attempt to understand the importance of being the governor of a border state is a personal failing.
Not just one border country but two. Russia and Canada.
Palin negotiated with the country of Canada and was working towards a natural gas pipleline with TransCanada a very complicated project dealing with not only the country of Canada but also negotiating with Native Indian Tribes.
More foreign policy experience than that junior nobody Senator from Illinois.
People discounted Palin because she was a conservative woman and spread the meme that she is an idiot. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
"Why do it now if it is for political purposes?"
Sorry, but I have to call that a disingenuous response. Can you do better?
The TransCanada Alaska Pipeline project has been stalled and stymied by Federal regulators.
I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a petty move on the part of the Obama administration if not the man himself to deny Palin any credit. Screw the people and the ability to have lower energy costs....can't let Palin have a success story.
Sorry, but I have to call that a disingenuous response
I agreed to play. You have to come up some reason to play.
Is there more to this quote [Palin re Alaska] or are you Modo-ing on us Larry?
Why, yes there is, and none of it seems "dumb" to me -- from the transcript:
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
We have geographical proximity to Russia. The world has become smaller. We need to get along with our allies and adversaries. Has that been news to any American over the age of seven since the end of WW1?
So that was Sarah Palin's insight into what was going on between Putin and Georgia — her insight into a specific national security situation. No wonder Tina Fey got so much comedic mileage out of it.
De platitudibus non est disputandum.
To repeat myself, she also said:
"After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Sen. Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."
~Sarah Palin, Oct. 21, 2008
So that was Sarah Palin's insight into what was going on between Putin and Georgia — her insight into a specific national security situation. No wonder Tina Fey got so much comedic mileage out of it.
Yeah, so much more pedestrian than, say, Hillary talking to Barbara Walters about foreign affairs:
Barbara: Such unrest. What worries you the most? Iran.
Hillary: Iran worries me the most, because it's not only the, uh, terrible prospect that they might have a nuclear weapon, which we are committed to prevent. They're already engaging in, uh, terrorism all over the world. So if you could do one thing before you left...
Barabara: Maybe it's the middle east. Maybe it's something in iran. What would it be? In your--in your dreams.
Hillary: Oh, in my dreams, it would be middle east peace. Two states for two people, uh, living side by side.
I'd rather have Palin in charge than either of the dopey Obamas.
Palin, at least, has basic common sense.
So far,after 7-8 years in the public spotlight, there is no evidence that either of the Obamas is very smart or wise. Neither has common sense or even a smidgen of humility.
And what was Obama's insight?
Oh, right... he gets a pass or you're a racist.
I remember Obama's insight into the problem of the Taliban in Pahkistan... he was going to tell Pakistan what-for, by golly, and drone the suckers.
The fragile balance in Pahhhhhkistan crumbled as soon as he was elected and regime change involved assassinations but whatever.... brown people...
And Iraq is fragmenting before our eyes.
And Putin invaded the U-fricking-kraine. Because, apparently, explaining the facts that everyone knows is only worth getting ridiculed and attacked in the service of propping up Obama who's "unique insight" was tough-boy-talk.
Yippie!
Synova-I think it is pronounced Tollybonn according to the president.
I voted for Sarah, not McCain. I find her annoying now, but still convinced she would have governed better than Obama with half her brain tied behind her back.
Is it just me, or is HRC insufferably white?
No, it's not just you, Haz. Plenty of racialists are with you.
Haz, She is the Pillsbury Dough Dyke.
There's one now.
And he gets bonus points for bringing the gay hate.
Cheers!
@ Chip S re grammar. Thank you sir. I did not want to have to embarrass the dissenter.
Basic rule: Drop the other person / item and read sentence. Ta daa.
@A Reasonable Man Things are going pretty well for the Dems
I missed your /s. Surely you are not serious.
Pet Projects: I don't remember the nagging from previous FLOTUSII. Even Nancy with her drugs thingey. Lady Bird planted flowers ....
The controlling of the food choices is creepy and intrusive.
Did Laura change the reading lists in the schools? Make kids read the books she thought were the best?
Hillary was trying to force us into universal healthcare. Damn. These people are good at telling us little people what we have to do. And then regulate it to cut off our escape and we can't vote to undo it.
@ Meade We have geographical proximity to Russia. The world has become smaller. We need to get along with our allies and adversaries. Has that been news to any American over the age of seven since the end of WW1?
Seriously? You really believe that? Apparently more than half of the voters in the US did not realize that Alaska has anything at all to do with Russia. Or Canada. None in the MSM anyway. And certainly not the president- to-be of the 57 states, who probably would have thought Gibson was asking about the Georgia Bull Dawgs.
FWIW the USS Missouri is parked in what was Obama's back yard .. just a few miles from where he got his $uperb education and he did not know who signed the surrender and where.
So no, I do not believe many Americans over the age of 7 these days know squat about American history or world geography.
"So no, I do not believe many Americans over the age of 7 these days know squat about American history or world geography. "
Okay. Sarah Palin is qualified to teach 2nd grade U.S. history. Kudos.
Sarah Palin is just full of nutty ideas.
And what was Obama's insight?
Oh, right... he gets a pass or you're a racist.
Just in my opinion, that meme, which gets passed for currency all the time on this site and places like it, is very insulting to a lot of people. I don't blame them but I also don't think you understand why it's so offensive.
I'm not saying other people don't say offensive things to you, I'm sure they do and they shouldn't. But you are doing it, too. IMO.
I would think that all fair minded people would be offended at THAT.
All fair minded people are offended at that, Darcy.
'nut said.
Being careless and destructive on your side isn't much of a remedy.
Now that right there is funny.
Which side is careless and destructive?
Perhaps the side screaming "racist" at every turn-- Dividing and conquering and turning Americans against each other-- all while they forge ahead with big unconstitutional fascist and illegal plans?
What difference does it make what any righty says here, phx? If Dana Milbank actually were to stop by to take the pulse of the right wing, we'd be fucked no matter what.
But phx could be right. It might be race, or it might be ideology that's the reason the NYT isn't informing its readers about Lois Lerner's Losses.
It's overdetermined.
Perhaps the side screaming "racist" at every turn-- Dividing and conquering and turning Americans against each other-- all while they forge ahead with big unconstitutional fascist and illegal plans?
So they're not allowed to scream racist, right? You however are allowed to scream fascist or, alternatively, accuse everyone of calling you racists.
You know, that's okay, I accept you reserve the right to feel justified and self-righteous about your position, the other guys are clearly wrong, you're clearly right, etc. etc.
Just for interest's sake, what do you think the principled response is, however? How would you express that as a principle?
OTOH, support for Darcy's position isn't exactly hard to find.
Why, just today we got this nice bit of innuendo:
When Christiane Amanpour pressed her on the racism issue, Clinton said she didn’t want to “generalize too broadly,” but she did admit she believes people are “not developing a reasoned opinion” of the president and they’re instead reacting on a “visceral, stereotypical basis.”
But you wingers are advised not to be so careless and destructive as to read any insinuation of racism into that artfully crafted bit of analysis.
I hope it wasn't needed, but just in case, add a /sarc tag to that last sentence.
Just for interest's sake, what do you think the principled response is, however?
Excellent question.
What IS the principled response to politically motivated, baseless smears?
This approach only seems to work on Repubs.
What IS the principled response to politically motivated, baseless smears?
Well I may not know all the principled responses, but I do know of many unprincipled responses.
Hope you are well, Chip S.
Here's one principled response: Evil is always with you. Make sure it doesn't come through you.
I like that.
The Repub nominee should use that against Hillary in their debates.
It's not the nominee I'd worry about personally.
Do you mean "That's not the nominee I'd worry about" or "It's not the nominee I'd worry about"?
Among the people who seem likely to run on the Rep side, I don't see anyone who's likely to complain about Obama getting a free pass.
I do see most of them warning against a "third Obama administration" if HRC's the Dem nominee, tho. Strictly on the merits.
phx said:
"I don't blame them but I also don't think you understand why it's so offensive."
I understand. Not everybody on the left considers racism to be the primary motivation behind conservative antipathy towards Obama. And only some of those who shout it out the loudest truly believe it. I'll assume for the sake of argument that you are not among the guilty and extend my sympathy.
But what should give you pause is that those true believers also, by definition I believe, consider you to be a racist for not accepting their truth.
You may doubt my conclusion, but if you do, I encourage you to visit Dailykos and argue the "republicans aren't racist" position. If you survive, you could let us know how it went.
It's a much more personal choice. IMO we can't hide our actions behind our politics and say "It's just the way politics is. I have to be this way."
IOW, IMO, you either talk out of both sides of your mouth or you talk straight. You don't get to say, "It's okay for me to do that. I have to do that."
If or when I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth I want to know that. I want you to point it out to me.
But I don't think it entitles you to more than that.
phx... I honest to gawd DO believe it is EVERYONE. Certainly if I count those who sit quietly and approvingly by while people scream racism, it counts everyone on your side.
Go anywhere... today I happened to do a quick read through of a news site comment list and discovered that (well, I'd heard it before) that the ONLY actual belief that Rand Paul holds related to libertarian principles is his desire to refuse service to blacks. There were ONLY approving comments from your side. No one said, Dude, that is a purposeful lie and insulting, don't do it!
I skim through a family members facebook about the 2nd Amendment and discover that "those people" only want 2nd Am rights for certain groups of the right people and not others, if you know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink.
Silence.
So what now? It hurts your FEELINGS that I present this as what it is? People allow that crap constantly. No one goes on Huffington Post and lectures the dears about how they really ought not to use charges or implications of racism as the go-to political "shut up" of choice.
It's ubiquitous. Obama said that when people disagreed with his policies it was going to be because he didn't look like the guys on the money. His followers picked that up and haven't put it down since then. Talking heads on television, not crabby internet commentors but people given a national soap box have been explaining to the world for 6 years that, essentially, no other possible political philosophy exists other than opposition to Obama because of his race.
You allow this.
Other liberals allow this.
People who say it get invited back to be on television and say it again.
So don't cry to me.
I will say that I'm encouraged by the fact that Milbank has gotten push back from the left because, frankly, it's unbelievable that he did.
And only some of those who shout it out the loudest truly believe it. I'll assume for the sake of argument that you are not among the guilty and extend my sympathy.
Save your sympathy. If it bothered me personally all that much I would be a lot tougher with some of you guys than I am. In fact there are people who have said terrible things to me and I'm still okay with them. Some of them I even like.
But apart from that, what you say there is probably pretty truthful. I don't actually go to daily kos but it sounds right. There are mirror images of this place for sure. And what I say applies to them.
I just happen to be here.
That quote I pasted upthread wasn't from Kos, my friend.
This isn't a strictly low-level phenomenon.
I honest to gawd DO believe it is EVERYONE.
There's not much to say to or with someone who's belief system is organized around that particular principle.
I'm sure some people can start with that or work with it. To be truthful it sounds more to me like something out of a diagnostic manual of thinking or mental disorders.
I truly have to believe you don't honest to gawd believe that.
Why read anything that follows "I honest to God believe all of you are not only terrible thinkers you are terrible persons."
Nothing good is going to follow that.
Take that Muslim girl that went to talk to the Heritage people... someone asked, where is the head of the Muslim peace party?
She said she supposed that was her.
Bravo! She takes a stand and makes a point to speak and to say "we don't all believe this."
If I ever, phx, saw anyone bothering to speak up, like that young woman spoke up, among the "left" when someone out and out says "Rand Paul is only about an excuse to deny services to blacks" other than "yeah, that is so true!" or if anyone calls out Clinton for the oh-so-carefully worded accusation of racism Chip linked to... maybe.
As far as I can tell, no one even notices it happen... it slides past like slightly pleasant back-ground noise.
As for principles, today I posted a "to be fair most feminists just apply a concept of equality to it and aren't all rabid man haters" push back to "my" side...
I'll just wait for someone to gently push back Clinton's statement. I won't hold my breath because I'm not suicidal.
Synova's "everyone" includes "those who sit quietly and approvingly by while people scream racism."
Which echoes Burke's "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Does that count as a worthy principle to you?
That was directed to phx.
After reading her 10:39, I have to say that right this minute Synova is my favorite person in the whole world.
Synova's "everyone" includes "those who sit quietly and approvingly by while people scream racism."
So everyone is indicted, and everyone is guilty.
I guess you showed us a worthy principle.
Why read anything that follows "I honest to God believe all of you are not only terrible thinkers you are terrible persons."
Exactly why I stopped reading DU and Kos. Now it looks like I can add Dana Milbank to the list.
Here's the thing: One side routinely and widely (watch any random 15 mins of MSNBC, e.g.) says exactly what I'm quoting from you, except they said it about Repubs, cons, and libertarians. All. the. damn. time.
So what's the evidence that these aren't terrible people?
OK, I don't think John Lewis is a terrible person. I don't think James Clybourn is a terrible person. And yet, both of them have essentially slandered the entire Tea Party movement. And that IS terrible. So what, exactly, are they?
W/o pushback, what would cause them to stop? (Aside from all Repubs saying Obamacare is the greatest thing EVAH, I mean.)
Guilty of what they're guilty of...
When liberals/Democrats point out that Clinton was wrong to serve that "they oppose Obama because he's black" excuse because it's 1) not true in any significant way, and 2) divisive and harmful to our national public discourse...
I... well, I'll faint... but when I come to, I'll admit I was wrong.
"Not everybody on the left considers racism to be the primary motivation behind conservative antipathy towards Obama. And only some of those who shout it out the loudest truly believe it."
I'd say almost no one on the left outside the proverbial "low-info voter" believes it at all. Not the talking heads, not the invited guests, not Joy Behar, not Hillary Clinton, not Dana Milbank.
Just as none of them actually believes "War on Women".
So that was Sarah Palin's insight into what was going on between Putin and Georgia —
Wait. She has insight?
The amount of unadulterated hatred in this thread projected onto a first lady is interesting, from a clinical standpoint.
I don't think it should be offensive to point out the truth about the extremely careless and destructive way that Obama supporters and the media have all too often insinuated that Obama's critics are racist.
It is very ugly and very offensive. Indefensible. I would think that all fair minded people would be offended at THAT.
When are Obama critics ever "fair minded"?
Just scroll through this thread. All the insane hatred of a FLOTUS of whom the worst anyone here can say is that she thinks promoting healthy eating in a country as sick and obese and lazy as America is a good thing. Oh, and that she was proud of it for showing itself to be an open-minded place.
There is so much hatred and ignorance in nearly every charge leveled at Obama that the parallel to the phenomenon of racism - (also a product of either extreme hatred, extreme ignorance or both) - is inescapable.
I can't remember any time when this much hatred ever gets thrown at a right-wing FLOTUS. Ever.
The only potential redeemable motivation ever shown on this thread is that someone commented about the "moral" aims of Palin's loudmouth yammering about Russia as something better than Obama taking his time to come to a coherent approach. I never knew we had so many moral philosophers here. Well, when those concerned about what's in America's actual interest give up and decide that rational foreign policy is worse than un-budgeted evangelical crusades of American moralizing, I guess those grown-ups will give you a call.
In the meantime, they're thankfully in charge and doing a much better job keeping America fine, safely out of the pits of hell inevitably burning in so many sundry places around the world that cons are so seduced to enter with every microscopic flare broadcast to them.
With the amount of military blood and treasure thrown into every foreign hellhole, you'd think a con would prefer bringing something better to America's streets. But that would be reverse-logic to them. They honestly care more about non-Americans in Baghdad than they do Americans in Boston. It's almost like they exist to bring the rest of the world into a stability that it's never known, while imposing social Darwinism on its own citizens. The backward logic is simply astounding.
Among the people who seem likely to run on the Rep side, I don't see anyone who's likely to complain about Obama getting a free pass.
Chip, what exactly is your problem here? Upset that whining isn't a more effective tactic for Republicans to deploy?
phi asked a question, though, you might have noticed. He asked if Republicans could formulate a principled response to what they might perceive as unfair charges.
Apparently, no one was up to the challenge. How unfortunate. We did, however, get to see an attempt to appropriate a response to McCarthy from long ago. Always looking to others. Always copying.
Never being creative enough to simply ask and answer the right questions, though.
But what should give you pause is that those true believers also, by definition I believe, consider you to be a racist for not accepting their truth.
At first this sounded like nonsense, but then I saw you went to the Daily Kos.
Wonder how those kooky cunts are doing. Actually, I don't. They're as bad as any other group of extremist partisans.
Most Republicans aren't racist. But hate is hate. When you hate someone bad enough, you find any reason you can to debase them - whether you agree with it or not.
That's why I think Sully's such a silly little douche for carrying on about Alec Baldwin as a unrepentant homophobe. Everyone knows that when you hate someone enough, you say things that you believe will hurt them, regardless of whether you believe in the logic of the insult. You simply care that they would find it hurtful.
The problem is, the hatred of Obama at times seems irrational enough to be of no use entirely. And maybe that's where it stems from - a knowledge of the uselessness of that sort of fervent hatred - a desperation resulting from the exhausting failure of any potentially more useful result.
But hatred is harmful. Hatred burns. Hatred seethes. And enough hatred convinces others of how much distance they'd best give you and any consideration of you and what you stand for.
[Finds Ritmo all alone screaming into the empty night and decides to put aside good judgment and engage.]
There is so much hatred and ignorance in nearly every charge leveled at Obama that the parallel to the phenomenon of racism - (also a product of either extreme hatred, extreme ignorance or both) - is inescapable.
Nice demonstration of Darcy's point.
When are Obama critics ever "fair minded"?
I remember quite well the tussles you and I had back in the day over Obamacare. You believed that insurance costs would fall bc. of the spectacular efficiency w. which the feds would process "paperwork". I said you were badly mistaken, and offered a simple explanation of why I thought that. Where was the "extreme hatred" or "ignorance" in my argument? (Not holding myself up as a paragon of virtue, just as a typical Obamacare opponent.)
They [cons] honestly care more about non-Americans in Baghdad than they do Americans in Boston.
Care to extend your argument to immigration policy and then talk about reverse-logic?
We did, however, get to see an attempt to appropriate a response to McCarthy from long ago. Always looking to others. Always copying.
So much is lost on you, I sometimes wonder if there's any point in responding.
Scrunch up your face real hard and try just as hard as you can to figure out why I referred to McCarthy.
It shouldn't be too hard for a super-genius like you.
But it's good to know that it's perfectly OK for the Dems to shout "racism" whenever things go badly for them until the Repubs come up with a principled response.
No doubt the Dems will determine when a properly principled response has been made.
Although anyone disliking Obama largely for racial reasons is obviously likely to vote Republican at the moment, it's true that no more than maybe 5% of the electorate is irrevocably geared that way. That's proportionately small, but in a country this huge it does give the media a lot of assholes to choose from when making an example of a small (but still significant) minority.
I think the bigger problem that Democrats make a lot of hay with, is how that morphs into the anti-benefits sentiments that many white conservatives who receive benefits vociferously squawk about.
And there, you know that the problem is an unfortunate legacy of the Reagan years. All his coding about "welfare queens" was blatantly thrown out to give people the mental image of a huge black woman in a fur coat on welfare stamps. A hell of a lot of cross-over votes to Reagan were poor whites who thought that their problems deserved more attention from government than those of poor blacks. It's history and it was reality.
We don't have a ton of out-and-out racists any more, but we sure do still have a hell of a lot of poor white Republicans who believe that their problems are legitimate, and deserve government attention, while those of poor blacks are self-perpetuated and less deserving. And a lot of that is a lower class phenomenon where different ethnicities perceive their interests to be in competition with each other.
If you don't believe me, ask Shouting Thomas.
And again, with all that said, a lot of Obama hatred is about hating him for not representing their party and getting away with it! Their hatred is so intense that they want to throw at him the kitchen sink. And if that means a few epithets sneak in as well then fuck him! It's Obama we're talking about! He's ipso facto evil so all's fair in how we can smear, is I think the way a lot of conservatives go about this.
I remember quite well the tussles you and I had back in the day over Obamacare. You believed that insurance costs would fall bc. of the spectacular efficiency w. which the feds would process "paperwork". I said you were badly mistaken, and offered a simple explanation of why I thought that. Where was the "extreme hatred" or "ignorance" in my argument? (Not holding myself up as a paragon of virtue, just as a typical Obamacare opponent.)
Who ever called you an irrational hater of Obama? I think the facts show that the growth of spending has slowed dramatically, so I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong about that point anyway. But I never said you were an irrational hater of the guy.
"They [cons] honestly care more about non-Americans in Baghdad than they do Americans in Boston."
Care to extend your argument to immigration policy and then talk about reverse-logic?
Yes. I care to ask why they only see immigration as a threat to our welfare and not market failures. Is it because immigration can be rhetorically and psychologically likened to an "invasion"? You're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Cue images of people sneaking in past borders, armed borders, trucks with twenty little guys in there imaged with state-of-the-art radiation backsplatter. Come on. There's a rational debate to be had about the pitfalls of immigration, but to deny that it morphs into some politically VERY useful xenophobia at the right moments is nonsense.
It shouldn't be too hard for a super-genius like you.
I'm tired, Chip. (And so are you. Your 1:43 proves it).
But there are real points to be made. The last two comments are better examples of them.
Good night.
Yes, I think you still find reason in responding to me.
Obama began his administration by making a huge show of refusing to even speak with Republicans... and by setting up a system for Americans to report on their fellow citizens for saying bad things about him.
That second bit didn't last that long, but we can't pretend it didn't happen.
The first bit remained and remains true.
Pretending that Republicans fussed that Obama didn't sign on to everything they wanted instead of faced someone who utterly refused to so much as *talk* to them, and then would decide *for them* what constituted a "compromise" and then counted on his foot soldiers gaslight the issue... that is going on to this day.
VERY useful xenophobia
Of course some opposition to immigration is rooted in xenophobia, but I don't think you can call it "useful," bc. this is an issue where the Repub officeholders are being corralled by the grassroots.
Anyway, since I lean toward auctioning off green cards, it's not my fight. I simply marvel at the ability of the Dems to maintain a coalition of people who want to open the gates to low-skilled immigrants and the very people who are most likely to be displaced by them in the labor force.
I simply marvel at the ability of the Dems to maintain a coalition of people who want to open the gates to low-skilled immigrants and the very people who are most likely to be displaced by them in the labor force.
Democrats (if they have brains) aren't opposed to acknowledging that Mexicans are performing VERY low-skill labor that Americans aren't competing for.
They recognize that the more useful problem to address is a mismatch for available skilled trades. They also associate the days when more people worked in skilled trades with stronger unions, quicker increases in living standards, greater investment in and growth from infrastructure and (coincidentally) the greater stature we had. (A totally off-topic point but still politically important from an associative/emotional POV).
Dude, green cards might as well be auctioned off. Did you know that there's a visa status simply for being a renown enough or influential enough artist, athlete or entertainer -- AND his entourage? That sounds like a form of privilege to me. Sure it makes complete sense that we'd have that, but still. Don't worry - some forms of plutocratic rights-auctioneering are baked into the works and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Yeah - they're P-1 visas. Described - "To perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete or as a member of an entertainment group. Requires an internationally recognized level of sustained performance." That would include Bono, etc. Yes, a wonderful philanthropist but a beneficiary of a plutocracy of sorts nonetheless.
http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/employment/temporary.html
Mexicans are performing VERY low-skill labor that Americans aren't competing for.
Near where I live there were two carwash places across the street from each other. One of them employed all (presumably) Mexicans, the other employed all African-Americans.
Now they both employ all Mexicans.
As for the P-1 visas, I don't understand your hostility to allowing foreigners to compete against domestic sports and entertainment plutocrats.
the more useful problem to address is a mismatch for available skilled trades
That's what an auction tends to do. The people willing to bid the most are the ones w. skills that are worth a lot more here than in their home countries.
And before you type "the high bidders will be plutocrats" let me explain that most proposals I'm aware of for a visa auction involve allowing payment to be made in installments rather than up-front.
@ Chip S re grammar. Thank you sir. I did not want to have to embarrass the dissenter.
That's what I get for trying to be funny.
Jeez. You people (yes, I said "you people") need to fine tune your sarcasm meters.
Yeah - they're P-1 visas. Described - "To perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete or as a member of an entertainment group. Requires an internationally recognized level of sustained performance."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That is all.
Synova's "everyone" includes "those who sit quietly and approvingly by while people scream racism."
So everyone is indicted, and everyone is guilty.
Yes PHX. Everyone who does nothing are guilty, when innocent people are smeared, ruined, insulted and hounded out of their positions because the Lefts screams racism or homophobe....and you stand by and do nothing.
Yes. You are guilty too if you do not come to the defense of the innocent and tacitly approve of those actions by YOUR inaction.
Yes PHX. Everyone who does nothing are guilty, when innocent people are smeared, ruined, insulted and hounded out of their positions because the Lefts screams racism or homophobe....and you stand by and do nothing.
Hey, who remembers this?
And YOU, a college professor.
I don't understand your hostility…
Not hostility, just slightly impressed mesmerization. Like, as in: There is a category of celebrity that allows for a special kind of visa? Really?
Sure, it makes sense. But still, it's kind of like one of those Hmmmm moments.
Also Chip, it was sort of the inclusion of the entourage bit that made that more mesmerizing. Obviously if the definition of hired help is loose enough, that could create quite the category for awarding much privilege of other sorts. A side-market for those made to feel "cool" enough to accompany a hotshot on his American voyage.
Everyone who does nothing are guilty, when innocent people are smeared, ruined, insulted and hounded out of their positions because the Lefts screams racism or homophobe....and you stand by and do nothing.
I accuse no right-wingers writ large of anything other than irrational hatred.
Sure, only about 5% of them rank race at the top of their grievances - but the mileage at making fun of them is infinite. So why not?
But then a really large percentage of GOPpers, perhaps due to the sting of being punished from power, simply hate powerful Dem pols soooo much that it's funny to speculate on exactly what they wouldn't allow to enter their brains while the Grand Crusade to trash Obama marches on.
Again, a small (but electorally significant) percentage of the hate is purely race-based, a much larger percentage of it perhaps due to resentment at him winning (and them losing). But principled fears and grievances are so small. People like Chip do a good job of airing them - (good, if ideological criticisms/concerns). But so many are so poor at opening constructive criticism that ripostes that are just as personal, partisan and unfair are often the only appropriate response.
Any GOPper (or unaffiliated, or whatever) who claims that it's a priority to make their criticisms FAIR, I'm willing to treat just as fairly and take just as seriously. But since when was fairness a conservative virtue?
Post a Comment