Obama/Hitler/Stalin/Marxist/Socialist/Fascist

[huskertim]

As a student and fan of historical politics, I've got to restate that none of this brand of "mudslinging" (mudraking) is new. Hamilton in particular was scandalous in his speechs and flyers (forgive me I cannot recall what they called them at the time).

 

Good ideas, however, don't require volumes of explaination. The article above uses, I believe 39 paragraphs to express the idea that people are engaged in over the top hyperbole. Whereas the message it combats is Obama = Hitler. Which do you think will better resonate.

 

My point here is that while we may lament at the demise of indepth intellectual discourse, I would remind you that true brillance is in brevity. The Declaration of Independence IE is not a tomb to fill the halls of Alexandria but it expressed the core foundational beliefs of not only a society of men, but of a flegling nation. The Constitution is not War and Peace but contains wisdoms unsurpassed these many generations.

 

Just my opion, but I think we tend to pat ourselves on the back for our great intellect because we choose to speak in long form, but I'm pretty sure that the guy who came up with E=MC2 was at least in our league.

[carlfense]

As a student and fan of historical politics, I've got to restate that none of this brand of "mudslinging" (mudraking) is new. Hamilton in particular was scandalous in his speechs and flyers (forgive me I cannot recall what they called them at the time).

 

Good ideas, however, don't require volumes of explaination. The article above uses, I believe 39 paragraphs to express the idea that people are engaged in over the top hyperbole. Whereas the message it combats is Obama = Hitler. Which do you think will better resonate.

 

My point here is that while we may lament at the demise of indepth intellectual discourse, I would remind you that true brillance is in brevity. The Declaration of Independence IE is not a tomb to fill the halls of Alexandria but it expressed the core foundational beliefs of not only a society of men, but of a flegling nation. The Constitution is not War and Peace but contains wisdoms unsurpassed these many generations.

 

Just my opion, but I think we tend to pat ourselves on the back for our great intellect because we choose to speak in long form, but I'm pretty sure that the guy who came up with E=MC2 was at least in our league.

The problem with the brevity you speak of (Obama=Hitler) is that the debate is over when a Hitler reference enters. Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual ability assumes that to continue the conversation is to to attempt the political equivalent of teaching a mule French. If it was an accurate representation of policy or person it might have the brilliance of brevity. However, it does not. There is nothing behind it. In that way it is the exact opposite of E=MC2. The science behind that equation is so complex that only a handful of people in the world can truly claim to understand it. In contrast, the thought behind Obama=Hitler is entirely non-existent. Those people don't like Hitler and they don't like Obama. Therefore, Obama=Hitler. That total lack of anything approaching rational thought is what the author is speaking against.

[Husker_x]

I suppose this is somewhat off topic at places, and I apologize for that. It's just kind of a summarization of how I feel, and it pertains to this discussion in a lot of ways.

 

Like I said, although I don't know anyone that is part of the Tea Party movement, I do have relatives that, I believe, are sympathetic to it. Take my sister and brother-in-law, for example. They been "system workers" all their lives. What I mean by that is they've been known to milk various forms of government funding. They live in a trailer park in Iowa right now. I love them, and I feel for my nieces, but I'm still disappointed with a lot of the things they do. I won't be offended,by any means, if anyone speaks ill of them. They follow Glen Beck wherever his rants go. In fact, my brother-in-law turned me on to Glen Beck about 4 or 5 years ago when I told him I was a libertarian.

 

I'd like to say now that I've never thought of Glen Beck as a libertarian, although he has said so at times. His stances are just too much along the lines of a conservative. Like I said, I'm not a huge follower of Beck. He, my brother-in-law, was having a discussion with me about politics, and we were agreeing on some things, but then I brought up some other issues. I did this slowly, of course, talking about how I thought there shouldn't be any gun laws. I, then, talked about how I believe drugs should be universally legal, and how I felt the borders should be completely open. He disagreed. That's fine with me. I told him why I felt that way. I explained that drugs are an inelastic good, and that legalizing them would barely increase their usage, if at all. I also explained that it would end all the needless violence and murder that goes on over drugs, and would save countless dollars. I also told him how I felt it shouldn't be up to a distant government in Washington to tell people how to run their lives. On this stance I'm sure he felt the same way because we both feel a general dislike for the federal government, although our feelings come from different places. I pointed out things like that in a similar manner for the border discussion. After this he really had nothing to say. It was like Glen hadn't prepared him for a discussion like this.

 

Again, I definitely know the type. I've seen that you, carlfense, have said you have Tea Party members in your family. I believe we have a similar background there. My mom used to be the stereotypical Republican. When Glen Beck appeared on Fox, all of a sudden, she became a closet Tea Party supporter. I don't get it because, in many ways, there at odds with each other. I've said that I think Beck has been targeting a specific audience lately. I still believe that to be true. I think he's targeting mainstream Republicans and middle America. I don't have a problem with that. From my experiences with my brother-in-law, though, I just believe that there are a lot of misguided opinions out there. Like I said, I don't know any one that has adamantly said they're a member of the Tea Party. Maybe you could shed some light on your experiences carlfense.

 

As for what Husker_x said about television not being good enough for political debate, I agree whole-heartedly, but what else is there? Radio is hardly a respectable medium in terms of viewership or listenership, however you want to term it. The printed word is even worse. You said something along the lines of "it's the world we live in." You're right about that too. Que cera cera, I guess.

 

I do enjoy these threads, and I'm disappointed that you've all, somewhat, driven away SOCAL. It's been years since I've been able to engage in political discussions. Up until now, I would've given my kingdom for an intelligent political debate. I don't really care if people disagree with me. In fact I welcome the opportunity to broaden my horizons in that way. I know what carlfense et. all are going to say. It's not a debate. He continuously, spouts the same stuff. I guess I just don't see why you don't look at that as a chance to refute him. If he comes back at you, pick apart what he said. Don't provide further examples that continue the discussion in a circular way.

 

To the bolded part. Are you serious? Driven away Socal? I had to jump onto my couch to escape the rising tide of BS.

 

We've had at least two or three threads exclusively dedicated to debating and discussing the merits of anarchy. SOCAL routinely makes appearances in other threads which often times themselves evolve into debates about anarchy. He also routinely posts extensive articles and essays about his position.

 

And guess what. IT IS the same discussion over and over again. After you've posted your tenth thousand word post that looks scarily reminiscent of your first thousand word post, you realize that the discussion has probably been about as beneficial as it's going to get. People can take it or leave it. And once again, I recommend you throw your hat in the ring if you're so interested. You can also PM anyone you like.

 

But you could say that a message board is a microcosm of a free market. You reach a certain saturation point and suddenly people aren't buying your product anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't make it available.

[carlfense]

To the bolded part. Are you serious? Driven away Socal? I had to jump onto my couch to escape the rising tide of BS.

 

We've had at least two or three threads exclusively dedicated to debating and discussing the merits of anarchy. SOCAL routinely makes appearances in other threads which often times themselves evolve into debates about anarchy. He also routinely posts extensive articles and essays about his position.

 

And guess what. IT IS the same discussion over and over again. After you've posted your tenth thousand word post that looks scarily reminiscent of your first thousand word post, you realize that the discussion has probably been about as beneficial as it's going to get. People can take it or leave it. And once again, I recommend you throw your hat in the ring if you're so interested. You can also PM anyone you like.

 

But you could say that a message board is a microcosm of a free market. You reach a certain saturation point and suddenly people aren't buying your product anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't make it available.

Yeah . . . I wasn't going to touch that one.

[knapplc]

I wasn't aware that SOCAL had left. He just posted something a week ago. It's the offseason. I'm sure he's got other things to do.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I wasn't aware that SOCAL had left. He just posted something a week ago. It's the offseason. I'm sure he's got other things to do.

 

Perhaps. I'm sure that could be it. I guess I'm just used to seeing the board like it was when I first joined, with him starting 90% of the topics.

[knapplc]

I would certainly hope that he's not gone. I may not agree on his political views, but he's a good egg. I just sent him a FB friend request. Hope he says yes.

[huskertim]

As a student and fan of historical politics, I've got to restate that none of this brand of "mudslinging" (mudraking) is new. Hamilton in particular was scandalous in his speechs and flyers (forgive me I cannot recall what they called them at the time).

 

Good ideas, however, don't require volumes of explaination. The article above uses, I believe 39 paragraphs to express the idea that people are engaged in over the top hyperbole. Whereas the message it combats is Obama = Hitler. Which do you think will better resonate.

 

My point here is that while we may lament at the demise of indepth intellectual discourse, I would remind you that true brillance is in brevity. The Declaration of Independence IE is not a tomb to fill the halls of Alexandria but it expressed the core foundational beliefs of not only a society of men, but of a flegling nation. The Constitution is not War and Peace but contains wisdoms unsurpassed these many generations.

 

Just my opion, but I think we tend to pat ourselves on the back for our great intellect because we choose to speak in long form, but I'm pretty sure that the guy who came up with E=MC2 was at least in our league.

The problem with the brevity you speak of (Obama=Hitler) is that the debate is over when a Hitler reference enters. Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual ability assumes that to continue the conversation is to to attempt the political equivalent of teaching a mule French. If it was an accurate representation of policy or person it might have the brilliance of brevity. However, it does not. There is nothing behind it. In that way it is the exact opposite of E=MC2. The science behind that equation is so complex that only a handful of people in the world can truly claim to understand it. In contrast, the thought behind Obama=Hitler is entirely non-existent. Those people don't like Hitler and they don't like Obama. Therefore, Obama=Hitler. That total lack of anything approaching rational thought is what the author is speaking against.

Articles l

 

I understand the point of the article, and it doesn't fall on deaf ears (eyes?). I too lament the perceived coarsening of the political environ and society in general for that matter. The point I'm making is that it works. The sound bite works because it doesn't require the intellectually lazy to work too hard to get it. However, the idea that one can't or shouldn't communicate intellegent ideas in equally breif and powerful quips is entirely self defeating. The advantage isn't just an appeal to the lazy, but the invitation to digest, internallize and comptemplate. When given a simple idea, and the tools to expound upon it, the average person can often form opinions that are well resoned and to which they ascribe their personal ownership. Articles like this one seem to express the notion that because people might not have 180 IQ , they aren't able to think for themselves. Maybe an "Idiot" like Beck has this figured out better than our well read and doubtless well cultured author does.

 

BTW, E=MC2 isn't so conceptually difficult that a simpleton like me can't grasp it, now when we get into the specifics of relativistic symmetrics I do get a little foggy.

 

Lastly, the very fact that the Obama=Hitler equation has sparked this conversation demonstates that it's presence does not end the debate. If anything, emflameing passions reveals as much about the mule as about his french teacher.

 

PS Stop picking on SOCAL you big bully.

[jnkyrdoff6]

 

PS Stop picking on SOCAL you big bully.

 

[knapplc]

 

PS Stop picking on SOCAL you big bully.

 

Are you stalking SOCAL? There isn't a post by him or about him that you don't respond to. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[jnkyrdoff6]

PS Stop picking on SOCAL you big bully.

 

Are you stalking SOCAL? There isn't a post by him or about him that you don't respond to. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

:laughpoundI thought he was making fun of me for my post earlier. Also, I'm really bored at work all the time.

[carlfense]

As a student and fan of historical politics, I've got to restate that none of this brand of "mudslinging" (mudraking) is new. Hamilton in particular was scandalous in his speechs and flyers (forgive me I cannot recall what they called them at the time).

 

Good ideas, however, don't require volumes of explaination. The article above uses, I believe 39 paragraphs to express the idea that people are engaged in over the top hyperbole. Whereas the message it combats is Obama = Hitler. Which do you think will better resonate.

 

My point here is that while we may lament at the demise of indepth intellectual discourse, I would remind you that true brillance is in brevity. The Declaration of Independence IE is not a tomb to fill the halls of Alexandria but it expressed the core foundational beliefs of not only a society of men, but of a flegling nation. The Constitution is not War and Peace but contains wisdoms unsurpassed these many generations.

 

Just my opion, but I think we tend to pat ourselves on the back for our great intellect because we choose to speak in long form, but I'm pretty sure that the guy who came up with E=MC2 was at least in our league.

The problem with the brevity you speak of (Obama=Hitler) is that the debate is over when a Hitler reference enters. Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual ability assumes that to continue the conversation is to to attempt the political equivalent of teaching a mule French. If it was an accurate representation of policy or person it might have the brilliance of brevity. However, it does not. There is nothing behind it. In that way it is the exact opposite of E=MC2. The science behind that equation is so complex that only a handful of people in the world can truly claim to understand it. In contrast, the thought behind Obama=Hitler is entirely non-existent. Those people don't like Hitler and they don't like Obama. Therefore, Obama=Hitler. That total lack of anything approaching rational thought is what the author is speaking against.

Articles l

 

I understand the point of the article, and it doesn't fall on deaf ears (eyes?). I too lament the perceived coarsening of the political environ and society in general for that matter. The point I'm making is that it works. The sound bite works because it doesn't require the intellectually lazy to work too hard to get it. However, the idea that one can't or shouldn't communicate intellegent ideas in equally breif and powerful quips is entirely self defeating. The advantage isn't just an appeal to the lazy, but the invitation to digest, internallize and comptemplate. When given a simple idea, and the tools to expound upon it, the average person can often form opinions that are well resoned and to which they ascribe their personal ownership. Articles like this one seem to express the notion that because people might not have 180 IQ , they aren't able to think for themselves. Maybe an "Idiot" like Beck has this figured out better than our well read and doubtless well cultured author does.

 

BTW, E=MC2 isn't so conceptually difficult that a simpleton like me can't grasp it, now when we get into the specifics of relativistic symmetrics I do get a little foggy.

 

Lastly, the very fact that the Obama=Hitler equation has sparked this conversation demonstates that it's presence does not end the debate. If anything, emflameing passions reveals as much about the mule as about his french teacher.

 

PS Stop picking on SOCAL you big bully.

Here is the problem: we aren't debating issues as a result of the mudsling. We are just debating the mudslinging. It's not the same thing.

 

Also, I'll agree that the concept of E=MC2 is understandable . . . but I in no way understand the why or how of its actual workings.

 

Finally, I don't think I picked on SOCAL at all. Did I?

[CornHOLIO]

[carlfense]

 

Eh. I'm not impressed with Obama. I put him slightly above W. Bush. Roughly average. Maybe slightly below . . . we'll see how everything looks 50 years from now.

[CornHOLIO]

 

Eh. I'm not impressed with Obama. I put him slightly above W. Bush. Roughly average. Maybe slightly below . . . we'll see how everything looks 50 years from now.

 

Me neither. And I try never to have all that high of expectations to begin with.

 

 

Got to stop writing in "Beavis" on these ballot things.