http://gamingtrend.com
September 02, 2014, 08:30:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Ah, class warfare. on: October 25, 2007, 01:12:07 AM

Quote from: pr0ner on October 24, 2007, 09:22:00 PM

Quote from: drifter on October 24, 2007, 08:52:28 PM

No unbreakable I have no plan to provide you with anything.  

My experience with you in discussions on this type of topic has lead me to conclude that you are so far out to one side that you have zero objectivity.



+1

Seriously. Normally I would relish the oppurtunity to respond to his last response to me, but... Unbreakable is like the guy who simply yells long and loud when faced with an opposing viewpoint. It's not a discussion; it's an exercise in throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
2  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Ah, class warfare. on: October 24, 2007, 01:48:45 PM

Quote from: Zarkon on October 24, 2007, 01:02:25 PM

By the way?  I wouldn't call what we have now a democracy.

A plutocracy?  Sure.

And yeah, most people who want one have jobs...but what quality are those jobs?  How many of them are minimum wage, or below the poverty line?  After 2001 when all the tech jobs went to India, I went from making $13 an hour to making $6.  And it's taken those six years to rise up to my 'lofty' height now of $9.65 (as of 11/13/07).  This is why I'm looking for a new job right now.

The number of people making minimum wage is tiny. http://stat.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005tbls.htm#3 The poverty rate has never been below 10%, and probably never will be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poverty_59_to_05.png

The tech sector got hit hard, no doubt about it. That's a reality faced by workers in many other industries in history. It will happen in the future to different workers in different industries, as well. While your situation sucks, it's due to free trade. Free trade is a different topic, but keep in mind that free trade is not some republican scheme- support or opposition cuts across party and ideological lines.
3  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Ah, class warfare. on: October 24, 2007, 12:31:11 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on October 24, 2007, 12:47:45 AM

Quote from: gellar on October 23, 2007, 09:58:47 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on October 23, 2007, 09:52:50 PM

Yes.  Defense and energy will not buoy the market forever, and no matter how many bubbles you create, they eventually have to pop.

The "Bush Boom" is just seeking to make sure they create bubbles pop after he leaves office.  But if you look at the economy pre-2000 and post-2000, the market was growing much faster pre-, the economy was much healthier pre-, employment was far far far higher pre-, median income was much higher pre-, etc.

Pre 2000.  You mean during the greatest bubble period in American Economic history?

I would hardly call the tech bubble "TEH GRAETSET BUBBBEL EVAER!!!!!!11!!11".  Plus... if you think it was so great, wait for the coming Bubble 2.0: it's going to make everything before it pathetic.


I know it's a trendy conservative talking point that the economy was terrible because of Clinton, and that all the things that were actually great about it were really because of Bush and Reagan... but just because your bumper sticker says it doesn't make it true.

Quote
You cannot seriously be making that argument.  The "Bush Boom"?  Are you for serious? 

gellar

No, I'm not.  But economists are, and I simply agree with what they have to say.

When I go to doctors, I go to specialists.  When my car breaks, I go to mechanics.  When my plumbing breaks, I go to plumbers.  When I look for information on stocks and the economy, I look to the information from respected and knowledgable people.  If you choose to get your economic info from pundits and commentators, hey more power to you... just don't expect me to agree with a ludicriously uninformed opinion.

You know gellar isn't a conservative, right? He just lives in the real world.

You didn't answer my question, but I know the answer- you have no money in the market. So I guess that makes it somewhat understandable that you think that only the rich are involved. But that's not true. Millions of hard working americans are invested.

And employment was not "far far far higher" under Clinton. Unemployment is at 4.7% right now- virtually every person that wants a job has one.
4  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Ah, class warfare. on: October 23, 2007, 09:47:17 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on October 17, 2007, 03:37:41 PM

... a stock market which has been failing for years. 

What? What?

Do you have any money in the market?
5  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: What is Bill Harris talking about? (car accident story) on: October 07, 2007, 01:15:40 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on October 06, 2007, 03:34:54 PM

I don't know if I would call her actions stupid.  Is it stupid to dive into a river to try and save your child?  It's certainly risky, and carries a high risk of death... but some would consider it noble.

So does her ignoring the risk to her life for her dog instead of a child make it any less noble?

Yes.
6  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Hillary's legal mandate for health insurance- WTF?!?!?!? on: September 25, 2007, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: Purge on September 25, 2007, 12:29:07 PM

That line is answered with a floating number, and it exists based on calculated poverty line and cost of living in the particular region. Living in Portland, OR is significantly more expensive than lets say Boise, ID.

Asking people to give you a magic number is kind of silly. I think the 6 figure mark is a fair marker though; you're nowhere near the poverty line.

It's not silly at all. If the "rich" aren't doing enough, who are they and how much should they be doing?
7  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Hillary's legal mandate for health insurance- WTF?!?!?!? on: September 25, 2007, 11:59:38 AM

Quote from: Brendan on September 25, 2007, 03:44:39 AM

Yeah, they pay 63% because they make all the money.  I don't care what the total receipts are, I care about the effective tax rate, and I've never limited my complaint to federal income tax (particularly because the effective federal rate is reduced by deductions for many state taxes).  For a reasonable person, who cares about buying bread and paying rent, the effective tax rate is the important number.  "What percentage of my money goes to taxes, and how much do I get to deposit into my bank account?"  For someone making 116k, that's 19 cents on the dollar.  For someone making 8k, that's 18 cents on the dollar.  It's almost as though Steve Forbes ran things.  Oh, except that the middle class got screwed by Bush.



So, again, how much income makes you rich, and what should be their rate of taxation? You see, this question never gets answered.
8  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Hillary's legal mandate for health insurance- WTF?!?!?!? on: September 25, 2007, 02:57:49 AM

Quote from: Brendan on September 25, 2007, 01:37:18 AM



Forget labels like rich, let's have you tackle this statement from my earlier link:

Quote
In 2001, Johnston calculates, the top fifth of Americans, making an average $116,666, paid 19 cents in federal, state and local taxes for every dollar of income. The lowest fifth paid 18 cents on the dollar of incomes averaging $7,946.

Exactly which moral argument justifies this?  Bonus points if you provide a moral justification for the upcoming veto of SCHIP, plus it'll be on-topic.
 


OK, first this part. Are you implying here that 116K is rich? Seriously? But at any rate, the quote takes into account the entire tax burden. That includes things like sales taxes, auto taxes, and property taxes which have a certain minimum level- this is not an argument against federal income tax rates. If you don't like local and state tax structures that's a different issue. And let's get serious, a single mother with 8k income actually gains positive income from filing a federal return.

Quote
In truth, republicans vote against their self-interest because they look for authoritarian figureheads for leadership, and they trust them implicitly.  Then they get lied to by unscrupulous politicians, but are unwilling to admit that their leadership could be flawed in any way, so they persist in supporting their party because hey, the authoritarian leadership assured me that nothing good has ever come from a democrat.  Health care for 4 million additional uninsured children?  Fuck that.  Daddy needs more money for war.
You can demonize the other side all you want, but if you really believe that the difference between dem and repub is stupidity rather than philosophy then you are shortsighted and part of the problem with our polity.


Quote
What an intellectually dishonest post.  I've provided sources for my assertions, unlike you.  I'm happy to accept cold hard statistics, but you're just pulling them out of thin air because I won't "admit the truth?"  Ha.

Noted right wing rag- The Washington Post

Here's a WAPO story that's really funny because the headline says that the tax burden has been shifted to the middle class because of Bush tax cuts, but then when you read it you find out that:
Quote
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.



In case you missed it, that's 63.5% of federal income taxes paid by the top 20% income earners.

9  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Hillary's legal mandate for health insurance- WTF?!?!?!? on: September 25, 2007, 12:04:16 AM

Quote from: Brendan on September 24, 2007, 05:22:38 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe on September 24, 2007, 02:12:29 PM

Quote from: Brendan on September 20, 2007, 03:03:27 AM



There's a new book by Jon Chait called "The Big Con", which apparently details how Grover Norquist and his cronies have been selling this garbage to average Americans.  Our overall tax burden as a country is much lower than other first world nations.  People like brettmcd think we pay too much in taxes because, as middle class people, we are paying too much in taxes (particularly now that more and more people are getting hit by the AMT).  It's the super-wealthy who aren't paying their share.

I have to comment on this. You complain about knee jerk conservative reactions, but this is a knee jerk reaction from the left.

You can look for statistics from any site you wish, and the results will be the same: the top 1% of income earners carry over 30% of the tax burden. The top 5% pay over 50%.

If you believe that higher taxes would be beneficial then say that. Don't hide behind class warfare to present an unpopular idea.

If you expect this assertion to carry weight, cite sources for your statistics, so that we can examine them for their veracity.  Given that I don't support your thesis (because I'm in favor of fixing the tax code to prevent the super wealthy from avoiding their share of the tax burden), I'm not doing your homework for you.

As Warren Buffett said in the article I provided, if this is class warfare, the rich people have already won it.  It's the height of immorality that his peers pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as people under the poverty line.  It's insane.  It's doubly stupid that middle-class people who are currently being squeezed by the tax code, and are paying a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy, don't revolt on their own (even if you're totally indifferent to the suffering of low income earners).  How deluded is our nation when the bulk of the Republican party consists of people who vote against their own self-interest in favor of the interests of the super wealthy?

Fortunately, there are wealthy people like Buffett who aren't selfish, and who are willing to speak out about the unfair wealth redistribution system in this country.  I had the opportunity to talk at length to Bill Gates Sr., who despite his money (and his son's wealth), supports the advancement of progressive taxes in Washington state.  An admirable premise, to be sure.

I can't cite a source you will accept because left leaning sites won't admit the truth. I did the homework which is why I have the numbers. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that if you look yourself and choose a source you can live with you will be man enough to report what you find.

The super rich argument really doesn't hold much weight because no one will ever define what super rich is, and there aren't enough of them to make a difference anyway. What's a fair percentage for the super rich? Heck, we could have a five page thread on the definition of middle class. The simply rich are paying their fair share.

Quote
It's the height of immorality that his peers pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as people under the poverty line.
This is not an economic argument, it's a moral one. You wonder why republicans vote "against their own self-interest" and it's because we don't accept this line of reasoning.
10  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Hillary's legal mandate for health insurance- WTF?!?!?!? on: September 24, 2007, 02:12:29 PM

Quote from: Brendan on September 20, 2007, 03:03:27 AM



There's a new book by Jon Chait called "The Big Con", which apparently details how Grover Norquist and his cronies have been selling this garbage to average Americans.  Our overall tax burden as a country is much lower than other first world nations.  People like brettmcd think we pay too much in taxes because, as middle class people, we are paying too much in taxes (particularly now that more and more people are getting hit by the AMT).  It's the super-wealthy who aren't paying their share.

I have to comment on this. You complain about knee jerk conservative reactions, but this is a knee jerk reaction from the left.

You can look for statistics from any site you wish, and the results will be the same: the top 1% of income earners carry over 30% of the tax burden. The top 5% pay over 50%.

If you believe that higher taxes would be beneficial then say that. Don't hide behind class warfare to present an unpopular idea.
11  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass on: September 17, 2007, 05:30:07 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on September 17, 2007, 02:48:06 PM

Quote from: Purge on September 17, 2007, 02:44:40 PM

I got to the point where
Spoiler for Hiden:
He cleansed the male half of the Source

I thought that book wandered too much, and the one before. Not enough for me to condemn it, but it wasn't as clear as the earlier books.

I'm pretty sure that was Book 9, Winter's Heart, which is as far as I got.  I've head that Book 10 was the absolute worst in the series by a wide margin but that he really pulled it together for a very good Book 11, Knife of Dreams. 

Book 10 was so bad, I was actually pissed off when I finished it. It was so bad, that I didn't read the last one until months after it came out. I had convinced myself that I was done, but then I needed something to read on vacation and I gave in. I'm glad I did, but it makes having the last book uncertain that much harder.
12  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass on: September 17, 2007, 02:37:23 PM

Quote from: Destructor on September 17, 2007, 06:15:46 AM

Yeah, reports are stating that Jordan basically has given out more than enough information that the last book (13) will come out. I also heard that 12 was actually a really good book, so if you ignored all the 'filler' books, the series was apparently going to end on a high note.

The last one was much better than the 3 previous books. In fact, I thought it was better than A Feast for Crows.
13  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Irony: Israel turns away Darfur refugees on: August 23, 2007, 01:07:20 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 20, 2007, 03:02:37 PM




Imperialism has never, ever worked.  It's kind of amazing how people still delude themselves into thinking that somehow they have magically hit on the winning formula which all other Imperialists have failed to figure out.

Are you kidding? Why do you think there is such an economic disparity between the west and the rest of the world?
14  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: George W Bush overturns 5th Amendment on: July 22, 2007, 01:15:52 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 21, 2007, 06:44:41 AM

Quote from: Mr. Fed on July 21, 2007, 02:30:25 AM

Good God.

You do realize that this is how actual, legitimate, informed, well-thought-out critiques of Bush administration excesses get discredited and marginalized, don't you?

TEH OMG... SOMEONE IS QUESTIONING DEAR LEADER?!?!?!

It never ceases to amaze me how people fly off the handle from people talking and discussing things.  Heaven forbid anyone question things going on... it's so much better to just sit there and watch the world go by.

Get a grip, dude.  The world isn't going to end because some anonymous dude on an internet forum starts a discussion. 

Really, man, stop grinding that axe.  You were a dupe, just admit that the thing you are really angry about was someone yanking both of our chains, and move on.

Handle- meet flying off.
15  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Do you think the Democrats are cowards? on: May 27, 2007, 06:35:50 AM

Quote from: farley2k on May 27, 2007, 03:01:54 AM

Democrats are a fucking disgrace or they are too fucking stupid to do math.

Everyone knew Bush would veto the funding bill.  Everyone knew the Ds didn't have the votes to override his veto.  So, why the hell did they even bother?  So they could give in a week or two later?  Fucking idiots.


Fireball, I know you are a D worker so please explain why they sent it at all.  You pointed out how they had to give in because of the problem if they didn't fund the troops, fine - I accept that.  So why the hell would any idiot have introduced it to begin with? 

Now to the whole nation the Ds look spineless and weak.  To the pro-war people they are still cowards who want to cut and run and to the anti-war people they are wimps who gave up without even a real fight.  Good job Ds! 

I can see no rational reason this was a good thing for Ds.  Fucking wimps

Because it's the equivalent of stem cell research for Dems. There is a part of the Dem base who would like to see the war defunded, and the party couldn't ignore them. At some point someone did the political calculus and decided they were better off giving a little push back on the war and accepting defeat than to simply not try, even though they knew they couldn't win.

16  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Case Closed: Illegal Immigration Is a Threat to Homeland Security on: May 10, 2007, 09:42:07 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 10, 2007, 09:28:16 PM

Quote from: corruptrelic on May 10, 2007, 08:25:15 PM

Hardly. The article clearly states (as did I) the status of the suspects. Three of them were illegals.
If we had it your way, we mine as well just do away with border security and let everyone in.

Quote
Three of the men arrested in New Jersey today were illegal aliens, while two of their comrades were green card holders, meaning that the government had investigated their backgrounds and failed to identify them as threats to homeland security. The facts of this case demand that Congress end all discussion of an amnesty or a "pathway to legalization" and focus instead on their primary responsibility of protecting the security of the American people, demanded FAIR.




Cause that's what I advocate.



I agree that we have to do whatever is necessary to tighten border security (including machine gun nests and mine fields). But you need to understand that amnesty is coming. The cost and bureaucracy needed to detain and house millions is just prohibitive. The end result would likely be a humanitarian nightmare that we don't want to be associated with. They're here and they are staying- and really we need them here anyway.
17  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're liberal it's ok to be a bigoted a-hole. on: May 10, 2007, 07:21:21 PM

Quote from: Austin on May 10, 2007, 06:17:14 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe on May 10, 2007, 06:05:25 PM

Quote from: Austin on May 10, 2007, 05:40:00 PM



Interesting.  So you give Spaghetti Monster equal credence that you do to Catholicism then?

If one is agnostic, athiest, or simply not an adherent of spaghetti monsterism or catholicism shouldn't one give equal credence to the two?

No.  One can look at a claim and examine it against, history, internal and external consistencies, prophetic claims, etc...  Even if one doesn't take on a religion and follow it, surely one can use one's faculties to determine which one is more likely. 

So I should give more credence to the ancient spaghetti monster rather than the new? As Fireball points out, religion is a man made construct. If I believe in the metaphysical basis of neither, why give more credence to either?
18  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're liberal it's ok to be a bigoted a-hole. on: May 10, 2007, 06:05:25 PM

Quote from: Austin on May 10, 2007, 05:40:00 PM



Interesting.  So you give Spaghetti Monster equal credence that you do to Catholicism then?

If one is agnostic, athiest, or simply not an adherent of spaghetti monsterism or catholicism shouldn't one give equal credence to the two?
19  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're liberal it's ok to be a bigoted a-hole. on: May 10, 2007, 04:27:48 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 10, 2007, 04:19:33 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 10, 2007, 02:34:24 PM

As for validity- thier faith is not valid representation of who God says He is, who He says Christ is, how to worship him etc.

Well, their faith is not a valid reputation of who you think God says He is (in your opinoin), who He says Christ is (in your opinion), how to worship him (in your opinion) etc.

Religion is truly just opinion. No religious belief can be judged as better than any other, because they're all matters of faith and opinion. Asserting flat out that you are correct and others, all others, are wrong, is more than a bit arrogant when it comes to something that cannot be proven either way.

I agree. ATB would have been better off saying that Mormons are not Christians. A case could be made for that.
20  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Case Closed: Illegal Immigration Is a Threat to Homeland Security on: May 09, 2007, 12:51:05 PM

Quote from: whiteboyskim on May 09, 2007, 02:29:04 AM

Quote from: CeeKay on May 09, 2007, 12:50:12 AM

I say we irradiate all of the states that are on the border.  It's the only way to be sure.

Louisiana gets my vote.

My guess is that Texas gets more votes that Louisiana.
21  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Whoa! on: May 08, 2007, 02:53:28 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 08, 2007, 02:43:30 PM

That first frame confuses me. Is the mercedes parked or moving?  If moving:

How is it possible that the guy got that far into the lane without seeing the mercedes coming down the road? How is it possible that he got that close to the mercedes without seeing it?



I blame the pedestrian.

Two other pedestrians in the crosswalk and the stopped car in the left lane seems to indicate that the mercedes should have stopped for a light but did not.
22  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 08, 2007, 01:40:58 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 08, 2007, 01:24:31 AM

Quote from: Poleaxe
It seems unrealistic to assume that he referred to the number of books authored by Obama in a derogatory manner, and then praised them in the same sentence. In the following sentences of the paragraph he goes on to talk about Obama's unthreatening tone. The most reasonable explanation is that he is saying that the books are fine oratory (even though they aren't oral at all) but lack the substance that would have disturbed their genial tone.

I believe you'll find that "those stem-winders" Ehrenstein mentions do not refer to the books, but to the stump speeches he mentions earlier in the article.

Quote from: David Ehrenstein
The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing.

When Ehrenstein writes, "Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders," he's citing two separate elements of his public persona: first his books, then his speeches.  He's making his point that Obama's popularity has more to do with his style than his substance.  It's an argument I've heard many times since before Obama even declared his candidacy...though Ehrenstein's article is the first one I've read that suggests that whites only *really* like him because he helps assuage their liberal guilt.

-Autistic Angel

You are correct, but my point still stands. Ehrenstein had plenty oppurtunity to say Obama was mischaracterized as the magic negro, but he didn't.
Quote
The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

This is the full paragraph. His words are mild, but I have a hard time reading them as admiring. If he were trying to say that Obama wasn't really the magic negro, would he use "magically" to describe how he avoids criticism?

23  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 08, 2007, 12:18:08 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 07, 2007, 10:24:50 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe
The problem with what you're saying is that Ehrenstein never delivers the second half of your point. He never says: "Hey, that's just the way white america perceives him- he's really a fine example of black America."

Look at this paragraph:

Quote
Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Note the bolded phrases- he's not being complimentary here. So even if his point is that white america is projecting, he also seems to be damning Obama for being a receptive target of that projection.

I was not familiar with the definition of a "stem-winding speech", so I looked it up.  Multiple websites seem to agree that it is an adjective "of, relating to, or characterized by rousing oration."  One website notes that a newer sort of usage seems to imply that a speech is too long or overblown, but also points out that this is not the commonly accepted meaning.  I disagree with your assertion that it's used here in a derogatory fashion.

Now look at the paragraph that preceeded the one you quoted:

Quote from: David Ehrenstein
The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged often several times a day I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

The sarcasm used here in distinguishing Obama's racial "inauthenticity" from the "sterling examples" of "'genuine' blackness" is obvious...except, apparently, to the song writers at The Rush Limbaugh Show who base an entire song on the pretense that it was intended as an earnest criticism of Obama's "racial credentials."

This is why the song does not qualify as a parody: it specifically and repeatedly cites the LA Times op-ed piece as the target of its mockery, grossly mischaracterizing the actual content of the article in the process.  You can scour the internet for examples where Obama's racial credentials actually are called into question, but the fact remains that the song is dishonestly attributes those attitudes where they don't actually exist.

Why not go after an actual source of those attitudes?  Because none of them used the phrase "Magic Negro," and the people at The Rush Limbaugh Show desperately wanted to adopt that term as something they could toss around as part of their crypto-racist jargon.  "Hey, don't blame us: we didn't make it up!  We're just repeating something the drive-by media likes to say!"

-Autistic Angel

It seems unrealistic to assume that he referred to the number of books authored by Obama in a derogatory manner, and then praised them in the same sentence. In the following sentences of the paragraph he goes on to talk about Obama's unthreatening tone. The most reasonable explanation is that he is saying that the books are fine oratory (even though they aren't oral at all) but lack the substance that would have disturbed their genial tone.

I see what you mean about the second paragraph.  It should be noted that it directly precedes the first paragraph. I read it as a disclaimer before he criticizes Obama: I know how bad this sucks, but...

As far as disqualifying the segment as a parody, I disagree. If the target of the parody is poorly chosen, that doesn't make it racism. Heck, you and I interpret the editorial differently. I don't believe you are looking for ways to make it fit your world view, simply assessing what you read. I hope you grant me the same leeway. And Ehrenstein clearly makes the point that whites are supporting Obama because of the "magic Negro" trope which is worthy of mockery on it's face, wouldn't you agree? Also, we know the parody is influenced by more than just this editorial because of the use of Al Sharpton as a character, and I showed where that came from earlier. So even if you think that Rush has conflated two different issues (and I disagree) the automatic reaction of racism still seems unsupported.
24  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 11:34:21 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on May 07, 2007, 11:31:32 PM

Quote from: Andrew Mallon on May 07, 2007, 10:43:53 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on May 07, 2007, 10:00:43 PM

Also, like I said, Rush stating all this stuff but then trying to push the responsibility for it off on someone else is intellectually dishonest.  Rush isn't sitting there for an hour reading an article somebody wrote, so he is clearly hammering home his own viewpoint despite trying to weasle out of it and blame someone else for the words coming out of his mouth.

The fact that I reject his disclaimer out of hand isn't bias, it's common sense.

The liberal David Ehrenstein makes the argument that whites are voting for Obama out of "white guilt." Rush Limbuagh describes Ehrenstein argument and then proceeds to mock (in a crass and offensive) way and argue against this point and say that whites aren't voting for Obama out of white guilt. So, somehow this means to you, that Rush is defending Ehrenstein's (who is black) racist theories on white guilt?

Excuse me for scratching my head.

First off, I don't know who Ehrenstein is, nor can I confirm whether he is a liberal or not, nor do I find his liberal-itude relevant.

What I do see is Rush hammering home the meme that white people voting for Obama are racists, then just offhanded saying it's a parody, and blaming the point he was hammering home on 'teh libr00lz'.  If you are gullible to fall for his act, good for you.  But please don't expect me to buy into a weak and ineffectual disclaimer to his racist rant.

At least David Duke is man enough to stand up for his racist beliefs.  It's kind of wimpy of Limbaugh and his listeners to hide under their skirts and point the finger at someone else in some lame attempt to conceal their hate speech.  If they want to play a racist song ten times a week, at least have the testicular fortitude to admit what you are doing.

Stop, you're going to pull something contorting like that.
25  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 08:50:36 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 07, 2007, 08:08:13 PM



In order to argue that Ehrenstein is saying "Obama isn't a real black man", you must first believe that Ehrenstein defines a "real black man" as "a comic-book superhero who helps people out of the goodness of his heart and helps assuage white liberal guilt."  He's actually doing just the opposite, pointing out that Barack Obama belongs in the "real man" category and arguing that white people have mistaken him for a "Magic Negro" because he happens to be black.  He's not arguing that Obama isn't black enough; he's arguing that the fact Obama is black causes white people are willing to propel a black man they know nothing about to superstardom, simply to relieve their white liberal guilt.


The original editorial is here.

The problem with what you're saying is that Ehrenstein never delivers the second half of your point. He never says: "Hey, that's just the way white america perceives him- he's really a fine example of black America."

Look at this paragraph:
Quote
Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).
Note the bolded phrases- he's not being complimentary here. So even if his point is that white america is projecting, he also seems to be damning Obama for being a receptive target of that projection.

Quote
If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

This is the last line of the editorial. It seems fairly straight forward to me. At the very least Ehrenstein implies that Obama welcomes this perception by white america. I can only take this to mean that he is not real enough; not black enough.

 
26  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 07:56:57 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on May 07, 2007, 07:31:38 PM


There is much more, but I think this post is long enough to make my point.  Rush is claiming that the ONLY reason a white person would ever consider voting for Obama is because of "white guilt".  That seems pretty racist, to me.


The funny thing is that you don't even understand the context of your own quotes. He's parroting what Ehrenstein and Debra Whatsherface said to make his point.

But listen, I don't want to be a general appologist for Rush- personally I listen to ESPN on the radio. But the idea that Rush/Magic Negro parody equals automatic racism is intellectually lazy.

EDIT: And btw, Colbert suggests Obama be a slave for Al Sharpton for a while to gain street cred with blacks. I wonder how that quote would be presented and received if Rush had said it.
27  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 07:15:16 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on May 07, 2007, 06:44:05 PM



And who can forget when he was yanked from Monday Night Football for making racist comments?



If that's your proof of Rush's racist past, you're probably on unsteady ground. His comments were stupid rather than particularly racist.
Here is what he said:
Quote
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. ... There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."


Many, many people think McNabb is overrated, and the change in team performance when McNabb went down and Garcia stepped in last season bears that out in my mind. He was also correct in that the D carried the team the year before his comments (IMO). Now the comments on the media seeking the great black QB hope were stupid. But be that as it may, they really weren't racist. Essentially he was saying that the media was seeking to elevate a black QB for social reasons. As I said, stupid but not really all that offensive to blacks. I mean I guess you could argue that his implication is that a black QB would need that sort of support from the media to achieve success, but that's really reading more into what he said than was there.
28  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 06:53:39 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on May 07, 2007, 06:44:05 PM


Rush is a right-wing attack dog with a long history of racist remarks.  By his own admission he has been carrying water for the worst kinds of people.  To call his statements satire is giving him far too much credit.  In the context of things he has said in the past, this is simply another in a long line of racist attacks.


So your answer to the above question is that it's racist because Rush did it. At least you're honest.
29  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 06:37:15 PM

Quote from: helot2000 on May 07, 2007, 05:18:13 PM



Flip this around.  If you took this to work and said, "hey, I have this great parody" and you played it for all your coworkers at a big meeting, is there a chance that they would be uncomfortable and maybe you would end up in trouble?  If so, why is that? 


The work place isn't really a great place for any sort of parody these days. Having said that, political satire is an old and respected form of expression. Of course Barak the Magic Negro doesn't exactly compare favorably to Swift.

Quote
Its like playing with fire.  Only a few professionals can do it without being burned.  I respect your willingness to stick your neck out on the difficult issue of racism, Poleaxe.  It deserves much discussion and reflection.  I'm unsure if this parody is a good litmus test but that is just me.  


Thank you. It is like playing with fire, but should it be?

Quote from: Unbreakable
It has to be viewed in context.  There is a difference between Chris Rock or Mel Brooks doing a racial joke and Rush Limbaugh or someone doing one.  The difference is whether it's meant to be mean spirited or not, and just about everything Rush says is meant to be mean spirited.  The guy has been spewing far-right hate speech for years and years... he doesn't have much by way of precedent showing him doing stuff "in good fun".

It does have to be viewed in context. The context is political, rather than racial. Rush is a right wing political animal who found a hypocritical stance by a democratic constituency. He jumped on it with glee. And let's be fair, from my quotes you can see that he didn't make this issue up. Even if you disagree with his politics or don't think much of his satirical offerings, calling them racist is excessive in this case.
30  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 04:25:43 PM

Quote from: Calvin on May 07, 2007, 04:13:48 PM


It's racist because in order to achieve its parody it uses racist themes, ideas, and words. I don't really give two flying shits if it's Rush Limbaugh that made it or said it, or that you don't think its racist. I, and a number of other people do, because we believe that parody of racism can be racist. It's not complicated.  

Care to point out what those racist themes, ideas, and words might be?

Quote
Defending each individual aspect of it will never make it less racist to those that think it is.

I guess not.

Quote
Now, back to your original point of trying to tell us how stupid we all are to disagree with you. I forgot I had made a point not to waste time arguing with you, and I now return to swindling good people of their hard earned money. 

Found your comfort zone I see. That's nice.
31  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 04:05:24 PM

Quote from: Calvin on May 07, 2007, 03:42:09 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe on May 07, 2007, 03:39:24 PM

Quote from: Calvin on May 07, 2007, 12:37:07 PM


It's racist because neither you nor anyone else, black or white, gets to decide how much blood makes one black/yellow/hispanic/or a little green man, or to decide what makes someone a "real" black man.

Exactly the point of the parody.
The parody can make the point I am making and still be racist in the way it does it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

So, is it racist because it was Rush?

Is it racist because he co-opted the magic negro meme?

Is it racist because whites can't make a parody involving blacks?

Or is this like obscenity, you know it when you see it?
32  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 03:58:59 PM
Lest anyone think my quotes are from a couple guys off the reservation:

Time
Quote
The sad truth, however, is that Obama is being rejected because many black Americans don't consider him one of their own and may even feel threatened by what he embodies.


NY Daily News via CJR Daily
Quote
...while New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch asserted in November that "other than color, Obama did not -- does not -- share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves ... So when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about."


33  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 03:39:24 PM

Quote from: Calvin on May 07, 2007, 12:37:07 PM


It's racist because neither you nor anyone else, black or white, gets to decide how much blood makes one black/yellow/hispanic/or a little green man, or to decide what makes someone a "real" black man.

Exactly the point of the parody.
34  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 03:30:10 PM

Quote from: helot2000 on May 07, 2007, 01:40:00 PM

I just don't find it funny and it made me uncomfortable to listen to.  That is a starting point but clearly, everything that isn't funny or that makes you uncomfortable isn't racist.  Next, none of us walk up to our African-American friends, neighbors or coworkers and call them "negro."  If you can't yell out "Hey Negro!", why is that?  Could it be that it is ignorant at best and tinged with racism at worst?  How about if I yell it out and then try to talk like Rush sings in the video?  Are we at racism yet or is defining racism like global warming-its not real until everyone agrees that its real?   

Lastly, I didn't understand the spoof so I went here for the back story.  That sealed the deal for me.  I know Rush is a shock jock and for him, its all about increasing the numbers.  The way he increases listenership is to generate controversy.  So read his banter and tell me if Rush is having a serious discussion on race or something less. 

Heres a challenge for Rush.  He thinks hes clever and gets to call Obama a "Magic Negro" 27 times in his broadcast because he read the term in the LA Times in an op-ed piece.  On that basis, why doesn't he listen to a Chris Rock routine and then throw down the real "N" word 27 times, because someone else is using it and therefore, he can too! 

One day, people will be able to run for office without their race (an artificial construct) being mentioned or bandied about by the left OR by the right.  I wonder if I will live to see that day? 


Quoted from your link:
Quote
The Times op-ed, written by cultural critic David Ehrenstein, is headlined "Obama the 'Magic Negro.' " Ehrenstein invoked the cinematic trope of the "Magic Negro," which he defined as follows:

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia [].

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic -- embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."


Again from your link:
Quote
Ehrenstein concluded: "Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."

Read that second quote again. I've read it before, and have read it again, now. No matter how you slice it Ehrenstein is saying that Obama isn't a real black man. He can't be because white America is too comfortable with him. Hey Unbreakable, you mentioned that one drop of black blood made you a black man- here we see that 50% isn't enough.

Now a link of my own:

Salon- This is a left leaning, much frequented site for those that don't know.

Quote
Which brings me to the main reason I delayed writing about Obama. For me, it was a trick question in a game I refused to play. Since the issue was always framed as a battle between gender and race (read: non-whiteness -- the question is moot when all the players are white), I didn't have the heart (or the stomach) to point out the obvious: Obama isn't black.

{emphasis mine}

Quote
A non-black on the down low about his non-blackness is about to get what blacks have always asked for: to be judged on his merits. So let's all just pretend that we've really overcome.
{emphasis mine}

Seriously? He's on the down low about his own blackness?

Quote
Without a doubt, though, the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton's main reason for giving him the faux high hat is a determination to potty-train the upstart, flex their own muscles, and ensure that there will remain a place for them at the power broker's table.

The above quote is the important one for this discussion. It illuminates the meaning of the parody. This is why it is the Al Sharpton character singing Barak the Magic Negro.

To sum up (again), the parody points out the hypocricy of far left blacks who make a living on race issues rejecting Obama on a racial litmus test. Now Rush is a right wing attack dog, but he sinks his teeth in here because there is a real vulneribility. If you simply dismiss this as Rush/racist it's easy to ignore the underlying issues.
35  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 07, 2007, 02:10:58 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 07, 2007, 01:21:50 AM

Damn, that is really offensive.  Parody?  Hardly.  However, I remember from OO that Poleass thinks that racism only happens to white christians. 

First, my wife is Honduran making my kids also Latino- so I really don't think you can paint me with the hates the darkies brush. Second, I'm agnostic.

Now if you can get past your knee jerk reaction maybe you will be able to articulate why this is racist. I mean if it is, you can articulate why, right?
36  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist a-hole. on: May 06, 2007, 09:18:30 PM

Quote from: Darkstar One on May 06, 2007, 06:35:00 PM

I didn't mean to imply that only conservatives are racists.

I just wanted to draw a comparison to the reaction to Don Imus' remark--which came from a quasi-liberal comedian--to the lack of response to Limbaugh's racism.

Could you explain what makes it racist?
37  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist asshole. on: May 06, 2007, 09:13:38 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on May 06, 2007, 06:34:47 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe on May 06, 2007, 06:13:28 PM

This isn't racist.

It's a parody that tweaks far left black liberals. It points out the hypocricy of claiming to fight for racial equality while denigrating Obama for being half white and not an authentic black man.

The racists were the ones claiming that if someone had even one drop of black blood in them, they were not white.  Kind of amazing how now that Obama has achieve a level of success and notoriety, they want to embrace his "white half".

This is pretty damn racist, by any measure.

What?
38  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Gee, I guess if you're conservative it's ok to be a racist asshole. on: May 06, 2007, 06:13:28 PM
This isn't racist.

It's a parody that tweaks far left black liberals. It points out the hypocricy of claiming to fight for racial equality while denigrating Obama for being half white and not an authentic black man.

39  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Why veto? (political thread) on: May 03, 2007, 08:21:53 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 03, 2007, 07:41:21 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe on May 03, 2007, 06:39:47 PM

We'll take you man, there's always room under the big Log Cabin...   Tongue

As long as your checkbook is large and your ethics and morals the exact opposite.

Because dems are never indicted for wrongdoing...
40  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Dry Cleaner Loses Pants, Lawyer Says They're Worth $67 Million on: May 03, 2007, 08:12:30 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 03, 2007, 07:45:10 PM

Quote from: Calvin on May 03, 2007, 02:54:33 PM

Quote from: Poleaxe on May 03, 2007, 02:48:57 PM

If you're a lawyer, take it like a man.

With insight so biting, witty, and sharp, there is no wonder why I longingly wait for your frequent  commentary on our discussions.

/agreed

I'd much rather poleass stayed over in tentacle city.

Oh yeah?
Pages: [1] 2 3
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.223 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.059s, 1q)