Monday, October 29, 2012

American Bob: A Message To Young Liberals

You asked for it, you got it. Thoughts and prayers to my fellow hurricane-weatherers.

169 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you live in California, Obama is going to get all 55 electoral college votes anyway, so there is no downside to voting third party.

But if you live in one of the few states that actually decides who our next president will be (Ohio, Iowa, Florida, etc) then yes, everything Bob said is correct.

Pat said...

@Anonymous

No downside to voting third party for President, but even in major Red/Blue states, Senate/House races can come very close and State-level officials are often close calls as well. Even more absurdly, a decent number of those State-level officials are running UNOPPOSED. Seriously, why aren't the third parties all over those ones? Those are races they can actually WIN.

Peter S. said...

Agreed. I truly do wish that there was more third party support in the race for president, but the only way that's ever going to happen is if third parties start gaining seats in the house and senate. Once that happens, then it makes much more sense to vote for a third party candidate in a presidential election. Also, good point about the Supreme Court. I shudder to think who the hell Romney would appoint if given the chance.

The Almighty Narf said...

Did I really just watch that?

Did you really spend the first half of the video pointing out that viewing Obama as an objectification of idealistic leftist ideals is incredibly immature, and then go right into treating Romney as an objectification of nearly straw-man-esque vilified right wing ideals?

Are you really suggesting that the best reason to vote for Obama is the hope that some day he'll make a blindly partisan appointment of a judge you will then make blindly partisan decisions? I mean, you do realize the left hasn't exactly always been on the side of human rights, right? Their track record with the whole "freedom of speech" thing has been exceptionally poor lately.

And then more hyperbolic vilification of the right?

Oh, and I love the clip of the scientists as if Obama would continue to support them, even though you know well that Obama hasn't, and is far more likely to pull scientific funding than Romney would.

I mean, no matter of intelligently you try to word it, no matter how much you try to dramatize it, this is a logically inconsistent argument that's in denial of reality. It's as if you're trying to take all the worst aspects of stupid conservative arguments and give them a left wing spin. And it's just as stupid.

ANImaniac said...

Um.... Bob at 5:38 you say what might be the most legendarily stupid thing I have ever heard an educated person say.

Bob let me ask: Have you ever been to Detroit? cause I have, I live there (or just up the road from there) and honestly its kinda fucked beyond repair. For Christ sake most of Detroit looks like a set of a goddamn zombie movie, and the shuffling hordes of homeless people don't help.
Most of the abandoned houses and buildings are in complete disrepair and in in most cases have been taken over. If not by the homeless then by the many many roaming herds of feral Cats and Dogs. Seriously It's straight up post-apocalyptic here.
I don't know more then 5 people that live in the city itself that have real employment. Almost everyone else is ether involved in the drug trade or is simply subsisting off the welfare system. To quote The Simpsons "Its Mad Max times there"
Everyday there more horrifying news stories from the rampant corruption with in the city's Government to the almost total collapse of the public school system.

Obama Has Saved NOTHING.

Ralphael said...

Already early-voted for Romney.

Mads said...

@ Narf

Wait what?

I...The judge appointment is very likely to happen under mitt romney, and it's very likely to overturn roe v. wade.

Isn't this completely correct?

Ralphael said...

ANImaniac is correct, visited Detroit last month. It is a ghost town. Businesses are all slow. Living proof that the economy isn't great.

Adam Meyers said...

I know a lot of people that are voting for Romney, even liberals, because they see him as having the best chance to fix the economy.

I'm voting for Romney because he flip-flops, and is thus more likely to manage the parties to come to an agreement, rather than telling half the nation "Shut up and take you medicine because I know better than you what you need!"

And if it makes you feel better, he just ticked off a lot of Evangelical right-wingers by getting one of their most prominent members to take the "Mormons are a cult" language off his website, and that kind of progressivism in religious tolerance is like poison to them.

So yeah, while I hate racists, I'm kind of hoping Romney wins this thing for a lot of other reasons.

ANImaniac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Almighty Narf said...

@ Mads

Well... no, not really.

First off, Romney himself isn't really against abortion at all. Considering conservative judges aren't all ideological clones of each other (no matter what bob would like to believe), an appointment by Romney isn't necessarily one that's against abortion. And even if the judge were, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would vote to overturn it.

Second, the supreme court can't just arbitrarily declare things. A directly relevant case would have to come before them, which is fairly unlikely to happen.

Moviebob said...

Unreasonable standulds are after all still standards

ANImaniac said...

Also I'm not giving Obama credit for Bin Laden's assassination.

He only made the call to proceed. Something that anyone else in that position would have done. Its not like he personally hunted him down, kicked in the door and shot him.

Obama is nothing more then another boss taking credit for the good work done by his employees.

Fallen Angel said...

It's really something that even a political video can be instructive, informative, and entertaining all at the same time. Very impressive. Kudos, Bob.

Anonymous said...

You Obama nuts are scary people. Enjoy your NDAA and FEMA camps, Bob.

Anyone who's not indoctrinated in that ridiculous left-right paradigm understands that you have no real choice.

But keep up the American Bob videos, keep eating your GMOs, keep your head firmly in that sand and keep on believing everything is as the media says it is.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bob, alot of people disagree with you. You should start moderating comments.

ANImaniac said...

Having said that the funny thing is I am not a Republican, Not in any stretch of the term. I just don't like failures.

Bob a word to the wise: stick to nerd culture analysis.

Pat said...

@ANImaniac

Quickly regarding the whole "Obama not getting credit for Osama bin Laden" thing.

Sorry, but it wasn't just that Obama gave the go ahead which "anyone would have done". He gave the order to proceed WITHOUT informing the Pakistan government and also without concrete proof that Osama bin Laden was even there. We had no visual confirmation and no legal right to be there. A lot of people at his side were very very nervous about that decision. If they ended up being wrong, they would have unnecessarily raided a bunker on a hunch without the consent or awareness of the sovereign government. If bin Laden wasn't there, we would have been in DEEP SHIT. And it's also largely suspected that similar opportunities were narrowly missed because Bush and other officials didn't wish to go over Pakistan's head, which may have been tipping bin Laden off. It's entirely plausible that a different President would have thought it wiser to get Pakistan's cooperation first, which could conceivably have led to a security leak that could have given bin Laden time to move out.

Obama's move may seem like a no-brainer in retrospect, but if it had gone the other way, we would be asking, "What was Obama thinking? Any idiot would have wanted to get Pakistan's permission first!"

Nixou said...

"Its not like he personally hunted him down"

What he did was
1. take ressources which had been used to deal with Bush Daddy issues and allow racist voters to jerk off more easily by giving them the biggest slaughter of Arabs since the Algerian Independance War
2. Relocate them toward the region where Bin Laden was hiding.

So yes, credit is due to Obama.

James said...

Bob, defend Obama's kill list, defend his drone strikes, defend his violations of civil liberties you fucking coward.

James said...

Bob, I said it before, and I'll say it again: fuck you, you left-wing Limbaugh.

James said...

Bob, you say "grow up", yet you're the one acting like a spoiled fucking child. Grow a pair and admit that Obama's as bad as Romney, you fucking tool.

James said...

Bob, why are you voting for a guy who's continued the wars and violated the civil liberties of millions?

James said...

Fuck you and your anti-libertarian propaganda, you god-damn sheep. I hope you get fired from the escapist and end up living on the street, you fucking fascist.

James said...

OBAMA CONTINUED THE WARS, YOU FUCKING MORON! DO YOU WANT THAT?

James said...

So Bob, if Obama gets elected and continues to kill innocents in his wars, continues to imprison people unjustly, will you consider that "progress"?

You're a worthless fucking fascist, Chipman.

Adam Meyers said...

Wow... that got nasty really fast.

Bob, even if I do disagree with you and think your critiques of the right are really, really strawman-ish, I do usually appreciate your videos because they're an intelligent person giving an alternate opinion from my own.

James said...

@Adam: It got nasty because I'm sick of Bob's egotistical bloviating. Despite what he's deluded himself into believing, he is NOT a superior being who is always right, and he should not be okay with people suffering and dying just so his "agenda" is fulfilled.

Joel said...

@james

And fuck you, ya gary johnson cronie. When Obama wins and Gary Johnson loses, what address should I should I send Old Gary's tears for you to wank in?

You are a turd who has made threats to Bob, Lindsay Ellis and other fine people who have blocked you various times for being both a stalker creep, making sexual threats, and harassing their colleauges to get to them.

You are a loser and a creep. Bob could punch a blind kitten and still be a better person than you by a country mile.

And I bet you'll get off on this reply like a perverted little toady you are. I hope that someday you finally see a doctor and get on some medication, because, pal, you need it.

James said...

@Joel: I have never threatened Bob or Lindsay. I've yelled at them, insulted them, called them out for their hypocrisy, but NEVER threatened them. I won't risk trouble with the police or jail time because of a few left-wing Limbaughs.

Peter S. said...

@James

In the past, I've made comments asking you to go away for not doing anything to actually contribute to an intelligent discussion and for resorting to repetitive, ad hominem attacks that do exactly nothing give you credibility, and I've probably come off like a pretty catty person because of it. That's why, instead of repeating those words, I'd like to offer these instead.

Please seek help. Get therapy, medication, start a blog in the vein of BatDanNight's "Irate Gamer Sucks" that's focused on Bob, do ANYTHING, but please stop doing what you're doing. You're dangerously close to crossing the line into full blown stalker. Also, I don't care how much you may be right about Gary Johnson and his ability to lead America into a more progressive future, you don't have to be such a fucking dick about it. I've followed your Twitter feed, and any time someone expresses an opinion that so much as implicitly supports the Left or the Right you spam them with the same goddamn things you spam here. You have a serious problem and unless you address it and accept the fact that even though people may support candidates for seemingly selfish reasons this does not automatically make them terrible people, than you will not get far in life. Also, your whole "Oh, I've obsessively yelled, screamed at and insulted these people for their percieved hypocrisy, but I've never THREATENED them" means fuck all at this point, because based on your previous behavior and your willingness to break promises for all we know you could very well cross that line.

One more thing: I've also witnessed your interactions on twitter that have been very pleasant, jovial and light-hearted. I know that you are not a terrible person and I'm sure that you have good intentions, but you have issues that cannot be resolved on the comments section of a blog. I hope you find what you're looking for, but until then please stop obsessing over one person so much.

Anonymous said...

Bob... imagine if you were some Pakistani kid whose entire innocent family was killed in a drone strike authorized by President Obama. Then imagine you log onto Youtube and see this bloated, ignorant, egotistical American praising his President in a short video before he returns to his Nintendo hentai and searching the web for creationists to blog about.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 7:34

I love how clearly ignorant your understanding of Waziristan (the region subjected to the drone strikes) is. Do you honestly think that the children in that region have access to YouTube or that they have a deep enough understanding of either the English language or American politics to make heads or tails of this? I am sick to fucking death of people using Waziristan for political points. They were not living some idyllic happy life that Obama is tarnishing. They are caught up in a struggle forced onto them by the war in Afghanistan and their own government is doing jack shit to help them. Extremists moved in and their lives have sucked ever since. The idea that if American drones left them alone then suddenly they could go back to their wholesome lives is just plain moronic and self-righteous. Fuck you.

Aiddon said...

I worry for America if Romney wins; the guy would just let morons run free and destroy a lot of progress people with brains have been trying to make for years. That can't be allowed to happen

Jackson said...

Speaking as a Canadian where more than two parties have a legitimate chance to win the election (admittedly it was pretty much a two party race up until the most recent federal election up here) but saying that it cannot work for presidential politics is something I disagree with because most people don't know who these third party candidates are or just how many ballots they're going to be on.

The best example I have for this is the head of the Green Party Jill Stein, a real presidential candidate that very few Americans have heard of because she is not affiliated with either the Democrat or Republican party. Recently she was denied an opportunity to attend one of the presidential debates and was arrested for trying to enter the building. The Green Party will be on 85% of the ballots and she was not allowed to attend the debate because she wasn't affiliated with the two-party system.

The way it stands right now with the two party system only alienates peopl

Anonymous said...

And I love how you think drone strikes are excusable because you think they have a shit life already.

Anonymous said...

I thought this was a thoughtful video and I agree with Bob's logic in that voting for Obama - even begrudgingly - is a necessary vote against Romney and what he represents. I do, however, take issue with Bob's stance vis-a-vis having unrealistic expectations of Obama. I do not think it was unrealistic to expect Obama not to expand the torture regime, expand secret drone bombings to multiple countries, assassinate American citizens without due process and far from the field of battle and maintain a "kill list," to levy sanctions against Iran that crush the population, crush dissent, and actually help the government more than hurt it, and to otherwise expand and perpetuate the War on Terror as much as (if not more than) McCain would have done. In fact, none of those were even on my radar at the time, which is probably not a testament to my naivete but rather my lack of understanding of the systems of power and capital to which Obama, regardless of how idealistic he is or was, is bound.

I suppose that at least with Obama, we can pretend he once had ideals. Romney seems to believe first and foremost in a Romney presidency. His election would be a big setback for reproductive rights (and women's rights on the whole), equal pay/anti-discrimination legislation, the anti-war movement, environmentalists (not that Obama was a huge help to them anyway), etc. I am sad to see that many of Bob's readers are voting for Romney and thus endorsing his worldview.

I apologize for the self-promotion, but I have responded to Bob's video at my blog: http://www.nicecore.net.

I also want to say something to the commenter above (Anonymous 7:51): It is not a grab for "political points" to cite the drone-bombing of the Pakistani countryside in an appeal to one's humanity as civilian casualties pile up, and your positing it as such is itself a cynical political strategy designed to silence discussion about it. Furthermore, unless you are privy to detailed and verifiable information as to how their lives were before we started randomly bombing all combat-age males in certain areas, is not a question of how ideal their life was before (unless you believe in the US as the imperial enforcer of world peace and happiness), but rather what we are doing now to make it a nightmare. Aside from being illegal, the drone attacks are counter-productive and not even effective in reducing terrorist activities. Around 74% of Pakistan now sees the US as "an enemy."

I apologize for having written a lot.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 8:09

Did I ever say that? No. I fucking hate the drone strikes. But what I hate more are idiots who seem to think that the solution to the problem is to just stop. You bring up the drones not because you have a better fucking idea (like offering aid to try and earn their trust rather than running in like we're fucking Iron Man) but because you want to make other people look evil. You don't actually give a shit about these people, you're just using them for your own political agenda, oversimplifying the state of their lives to make it appear black and white because it makes your point easier. You make me fucking sick.

Andrew said...

Washington (state) voter, voted Green Party for president, Democrat for all local offices - not by design, just had a whole slew of pro-Tea and/or anti-Roe Republicans as the alternatives, as a pretty decent Senator, considering.

Like you, Bob, I'm far more anti-GOP than I am pro-anything, especially the social conservative wing. But I'm tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, but what I find more objectionable than anything is the continued existence of a calcified two-party system. I want a genuine third party, be it Green, Libertarian, or Perotista. The current electoral model doesn't support that, but nothing will change in this regard if the very idea of voting third-party is viewed as either inherently stupid or childish. As for the argument "voting third party is fine, just not THIS TIME", well, that reminds me of the argument about why it's unethical to have a space program when people are starving. When are they ever NOT going to be starving? If we sit around and wait for that problem to be fixed, the Klingons'll reach Mars before we do.

I voted Gore in 2000, even though I didn't want to, I just voted against Dubya and the post-1994 GOP (Dole wasn't that bad, but Gingrich, yeesh!). I voted Kerry in 2004, even though he was probably the most worthless sack of pudding I've ever seen on the ballot, I just voted against Dubya, the new devil-I-knew. I voted for Obama in 2008, even though I didn't want to, as McCain had by that point gone so far to the right that I couldn't stomach the though of Dubya's party winning again. But not this time. And maybe not ever again. I consider myself part of the Thirder movement now. I almost don't care what party it is, I just think America needs to evolve away from it's current system, and I'm sick of being told "just not this time".

Ballot's in the mail. The time is now. I hope Obama wins - he doesn't need me, my state's one of the safest locks - but my X is on Stein.

P.S. If it makes any difference, I convinced my best friend to take his vote off of Romney and pick Gary Johnson instead. So that should balance things out.

Anonymous said...

@Raging Anonymous

Your own vitriol is making you sick. I hope you find a way to discuss topics with adults one day without flipping the fuck out. The fact remains: drone strikes don't help anything, not even those brown people living in filth in that "Warakistan" of yours.

Cyrus said...

As a European, I wish you guys nothing but good luck with both the hurricane and the election. Now, speaking as an outsider, the continued existence of the electoral college has always baffled me. Not only does it seem unnecessary in modern times but also seems prone keep third party candidates from even registering in the results. Have there ever been any meaningful motions towards reforming this bit of post-colonial cruft?

lemonvampire said...

Great video Bob! Thanks for bringing "American Bob" back!

Andrew said...

@Cyrus

Red: "[the electoral college] seems prone [to] keep third party candidates from even registering in the results"

That's the point of it. And it's not going anywhere as long as voters are too afraid of "the other team" winning if "their team" splits off to form two parties. Both parties would have to split for there to be any meaningful change.

Nevertheless, I think it's worth the effort. Then again, I don't have a team, I just have a lesser evil and a greater evil.

The Mason said...

@Cyrus

I live in the country, and the electoral college has baffled me since grammar school. Why not just count the number of individual votes instead of this whole "representative" thing?

I live in South Carolina, which will almost certainly be a Romney voting state, so it feels like my vote for Obama means nothing.

It wouldn't be so bad if the election coverage didn't also display the actual number of votes each candidate has, but they call this the "popular vote".

I kinda thought that the guy with the most votes in a contest was the winner, but the college allows it so that you can have the most votes but still lose. It makes ZERO sense to me, and I wish they'd just get rid of the clumsy old thing. One person = one vote, count em up, winner is decided, FUCKING DONE.

Redd the Sock said...

Wow, quite the angry video. It needed to be said, but still....

I'm Canadian so this isn't my election, but still, I couldn't vote Romney. It isn't my general difference of opinion on the issues or how the party got hyjacked by the looney tunes, but rather I question his economic proposals. An economy is not a business in that both supply and demand need to be considered. Cutting spending also cuts someone's income, and thus their ability to spend and pay taxes, and the ability of those they spend money on to spend and pay taxes, ect. Beyond that, what's his business plan for the country: a 20% income tax cut and billions in new military spending with no explanation as to how this feat will be achieved except non specifics about loopholes. If he was looking for a business loan with that flimsy a plan he'd be laughed out of his own venture capital company.

Andrew said...

@Mason

Don't you realize how difficult it would be for our candidates to campaign if all 50 states (plus D.C. and territories) were both in play and meaningful? Have mercy on this ordinary, blue-collar, salt-of-the-earth everymen. They only have four short years and a couple of billion to spend.

The Mason said...

@andrew

As Bob said in his video, *CLAP* tough shit!

EVERY state should matter!

I don't want the candidate I vote for not receive those votes due to an antiquated and quite frankly incompetant system.

One person, one vote, all get counted, highest number of votes wins, done. THAT is democracy.

Kodra said...

@Narf

I think the difference between "Liberals are dejected at Obama for not doing what he said" and "Liberals are terrified of all the awful things Romney says he's gonna do (even though he probably won't)" is mentioned in the video. Symbolism matters.

Romney is the front man of the Republican party which has said some pretty atrocious things that they believe will get them elected, like "In cases of legitimate rape, the woman's body has ways to shut that thing down." That politician believed that saying that would get him elected because that's the vision of our country he is running on.

With that in mind, I cannot in good conscience choose to vote for that worldview being in charge of our country. Even if they are simply politicians saying what they think they have to in order to get elected, I refuse to validate those statements. Instead, as Bob suggests, I'm mostly rooting against everything I hear come out of Republicans on almost every matter.

Adam Meyers said...

Just because I feel like posting a link to this blog post by Monster Hunter International author Larry Correia on Republicans an racism: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/lets-play-spot-the-racist/

Yes there are racist Republicans, but I think you all are overstating their numbers, especially given how many racist Democrats I've met and heard speak publicly. It's gets pretty bad too if you stop defining racism as "anti-black" and make it the more appropriate "anyone who treats people as a race first and a person second."

And your insistance that Republicans = Racists baffles me. I'm currently living in the 85% White Republican district that's about to vote in Congress's first black woman member, Mia Love, and we couldn't be happier.

In your effort to stop people who cling to false beliefs, please don't cling to your own. But then again, you are just human, like everyone you're bashing.

Adam Meyers said...

Sorry, first republican black woman in congress. But still, we couldn't be happier.

Anonymous said...

In summary (from the comments):

If you're voting for Obama, you suck.

If you're voting for Romney, you suck.

If you're voting for Johnson, you (may make a statement but) will not win.

If you're voting for the lesser of two evils you're a pansy.

If you're voting against a party than for a party you're doing the best you can.

Andrew said...

@Anonymous above

You forgot: "If you're posting as Anonymous, you shouldn't be taken seriously."

Anonymous said...

@The Mason

The electoral college was originally designed to limit the power of the people in electing presidents and give the South enough power to get them on board. The system is still in place mainly because no party wants to try to change it. From my perspective, it's partly because of the general ill will towards change, partly because trying to change it would mean alienating the states that gain power from the system, and partly because the system as is benefits some key interests and the political party structure, and makes the way politicians campaign simpler.

Tess Tickles said...

I always get half a chubby when Bob gets all "internet tough guy" in his American Bob videos. I'd love to see him talk to someone in a condescending tone while clapping his hands before saying "TOUGH SHIT" without getting his ass kicked afterwards.

Bob, nobody is intimidated when you get all snarky in your videos. You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are. If you weren't so busy trying to prove yourself a man, you would find out that your followers will give you the respect you expect from them in return, if you just stop trying to puff out your nonexistent chest.

Tess Tickles said...

I always get half a chubby when Bob gets all "internet tough guy" in his American Bob videos. I'd love to see him talk to someone in a condescending tone while clapping his hands before saying "TOUGH SHIT" without getting his ass kicked afterwards.

Bob, nobody is intimidated when you get all snarky in your videos. You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are. If you weren't so busy trying to prove yourself a man, you would find out that your followers will give you the respect you expect from them in return, if you just stop trying to puff out your nonexistent chest.

billy said...

lol "prayers"

David said...

"I would like to talk to liberals. But while I'm at it, I will play my pre-recorded, tired, baseless attacks on this vague, blurry 'right wing' caricature over and over and over again."

Bob, I generally *like* people saying things I don't think. It's how I challenge my beliefs and conventional understanding. What is so ball-blisteringly infuriating about your snarky, HATEFUL discussion of socio-political issues is that, well, you never really DISCUSS socio-political issues.

You just take a few jabs, make some points here and there, and everything you say demands a slew of links to back up what the hell you're talking about. In every single damn political video you make!

What do you mean by 'separation of Church and state'?

What FUC--*pants and tries to restrain self* what nerve DO YOU--*takes breath* Where, sir, do you get the notion that 'right wingers' are all racist? What evidence do you have to support this? Oh but of course, not ALL of them are racist, you might say. Or maybe only a few. Or maybe TWELVE or something, like the very, very, very, very, very small amount of evidence would suggest.

But if I accuse you of lying, you can--with some intellectual honesty--say that I am strawmanning you, because you didn't say * explicitly* that all, or most, or a few, or any portion of the Tea Party/GOP/'right wing' are racist. You just hinted at it.

See? That's the joy of you being so vague and non-descript with your pissy attacks; it's hard to argue against something who isn't really MAKING an argument in the first place.

This is why I request that you be more specific, and talk about the issues rather than just issues about the issues.

Now I *would* say hey, we can debate this stuff elsewhere all the time, and that it's unreasonable to expect you to get off track and waste time laying foundation to every single accusation you cast.

Buuuuuut, looking at all your web videos as a whole, I might begin to think you're doing this on purpose (whether you're aware of it or not).

Like, take a listen to the "Supreme Responsibility" episode of TGO. Here he is, talking about that sick, evil person who murdered dozens of people in that Oslo massacre.

"Brevic is your basic, far right, militant douchebag."

I am sorry Chipman, but I hope you realize that by saying "right", you're referring to 'conservative', right?

RIGHT?

You're declaring a psychopathic killer to be a 'your basic' (read: typical, normal, usual) instance of an ideology that close to half the population of America subscribes to.

Holy God. Flame bate much, Bob? Really? Seriously?

You then go on to actually describing some of the more specific things about him, like how 'he's big into guns'. See now, whether intentional or not, you're comparing him to hunters, gun collectors, and the like.

This--in addition to the 'far right' comment from three seconds prior--is and remains, by my calculation, the most ugly, ignorant, uninformed and mean-spirited thing you have ever said.

A guy who enjoys guns to shoot deer and clay pigeons and a guy who enjoys guns to kill children are "both big into guns" the same way a chariot racer and a dominatrix are "both big into whips".

Anonymous said...

With regards to the video, I think it was a bit overly snarky and angry. I like Bob anger at times, but this just kind of hit a level of vitriol I found uncomfortable, but that's just me. Also, while I think that not voting for Obama because you are disappointed in him is stupid, as someone who was most disappointed in his lack of balls when fighting Republicans and his incredible balls in expanding the Bush anti-civil liberties initiatives and shadow wars (Anonymous who was sick of people holding up the drone strikes, I find this practice really objectionable because of the violations of international law and what it means regarding the way that war is practiced, and the way that it is becoming truly endless. I care about those kids getting shot in the same way that i care about civilians in Syria getting shot, but my real concern is that we're the ones doing it, and what it means for the future in terms of terrorism and war as a whole), I think that being disappointed is reasonable, and I think Congressman Barney Frank better outlined how to address this issue:

(paraphrasing) We need to keep talking about issues that are important to us [liberals], but we essentially need to learn how to vote and complain at the same time.

Also, one more point in the anti-Romney side: while changing positions is reasonable, the level to which Romney has flipped on issues with no explanation or denial of the fact that he flipped, combined with the myriad misleading statements, misrepresentations, and flat out lies about Obama, himself, his party, and the state of the country should be incentive enough to vote against him.

Anonymous said...

@ James

Jesus fucking Christ, go get some psychiatric help already.

Anonymous said...

@billy LOL right? The thought of Bob actually praying tickles me hot pink.

David said...

@Adam Meyers

Just a quick response to all your posts here.

Yes. That's about all I have to say. The racism accusation is done. It has run its course a million times over.

I don't... argh I'm already going back to talking about Bob's video. Because... does anybody see what he did in that video? What he does in ALL of his videos? He is so, so good at muddying up his own opinions; at making everything so lukewarm and fuzzy that there's no way to respond to it without 'strawmanning' him.

It's so damn well done, I must say. There ought to be a martial arts movie with a fighting style based on this. A skilled master of the Chipman arts is able to not *be anywhere*. In order to defeat your opponent, you have to *hit* him. But in order for you to hit him, he has to *be* somewhere.

But a master of the Chipman is able to not be anywhere. He is nowhere, therefore, you cannot hit him. YET, he is able to hit you. He can attack and jab you, but you cannot counterattack, for you can't hit him.

It's a POWERFUL recipe of bullshit that I think could really be a force in the political scene.

Anonymous said...

@Pat

A decent number of third parties are taking advantage of members of the dominant party running unopposed. Here in Texas, at least, it seems like a great number of judicial races especially are between libertarians and republicans - yet another reason not to vote straight party ticket, since libertarians are almost certainly preferable on the bench compared to republicans from a liberal's point of view.

Anywhoozle, I voted Gary Johnson because, while I lean liberal, any president who claims the right to assassinate myself and my family without trial or judicial overview needs to do better on civil liberties to win my vote.

Shoumik Hassin said...

@The Mason

Well, even if you get rid of the electoral college (always a good idea), there are still lots of problems with simple First-Past-the-Post voting. I'd recommend a quick watch of CGPGrey's videos on it on Youtube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo). The voting system itself needs to be re-imagined.

@Andrew

I mostly lean Green on my political views and one of the ways I see them becoming a legitimate choice is if we who want third parties to succeed (including Libertarians and Constitutionalists and all that) need to get behind some kind of measure to introduce the Alternate vote. Third parties will never have significant power in any First-Past-the-Post system, especially one that's not parliamentary. Once that happens, at the very least, people can vote third party without worrying about the spoiler effect.

Nixou said...

"I think the difference between "Liberals are dejected at Obama for not doing what he said" and "Liberals are terrified of all the awful things Romney says he's gonna do (even though he probably won't)" is mentioned in the video. Symbolism matters."

It's not simply symbolism: remember that originally, Bush the younger did not gave a shit about tax-cuts and only included them in his platform to placate big donors, as some of them at the early stage of the 2000 primaries started to display an interest in the more openly plutocrat friendly Steve Forbes.

Once he cheated his way in the White House, he could have said, "you know what? I told some bullshit during the primary in order to keep my donor tames, but now I'm not going to screw the long term economic prospects of my country by sabotagnig the federal government revenues". Insted, he impement the "Bush tax-cuts", which were originally nothing more than a rhetorical trick meant to secure his victory in the primaries.

The American system works in such a way that elected officials do placate their primary voters. The awful shit romney said in the primaries? He will implement them. Even assuming that deep down in his blood-pump he does not believe in the shit he said to secure the republican nomination, and even assuming that he, in fact, loath the people he had to placate during the republican primaries, these will be the people he will try to please first and foremost should he win the election.

And whenit come to the now epenly pro-rape wing of the GOP, one just has to watch the numerous attempts to defund planned-parenthood and the attempts to redefine the lagal definition of what constitute a rape to realize that people like Akin are not merely a "symbolic" problem.

Romney/Ryan '12 said...

@Nixou.

Pro-rape? You're ridiculous. Another delusional liberal for the fetus pile.

@MovieBob.

Guess what? Romney/Ryan are going to win this Election. There is NOTHING you can do about it. NOTHING.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Graham said...

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, and I certainly didn't vote for McCain in that election. I voted third-party because I didn't trust the two main ones, and I wasn't one of the millions of blind followers of the Obama campaign in the years following up to 2008.

Did I throw away my vote? Yes, but I didn't care. I was proud of my decision in knowing the fact that I didn't stupidly vote for the four years of inevitable disappointment that would come.

The only important thing in that booth was voting for the other stuff (representatives, laws, etc.), but the presidency was telegraphed ahead of time.

Mads said...

@ Narf

First...Are you sure Romney isn't against abortion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jXQL9WLKXMo

That's a spot from just 2 weeks ago. It's unequivocal that he's for abortion only in cases such as rape, incest and maternal danger.

That means he's against _free_ abortion which is what people mean when they say abortion.

Furthermore, that platform can only become a reality if roe v. wade is revised.

And here's a quote from mittromney.com on appointing judges:

"
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
"

In other words, if he appoints new judges, they will be ones that will fall in line with the current conservative judges. Right?

I mean, it can't really be read any other way, can it?

Either way, if overturning roe v. wade is part of romneys platform on abortion, and if he gets to appoint a new judge, the judge he appoints is going to be a judge who would have voted the other way on roe v. wade. I mean, this isn't some ridiculous assumption, is it?

So then it comes down to when such a composition of judges would get to vote on a relevant case. I'm not an american, I don't know what kind of circumstances would have to arise, but wouldn't it just be a matter of some conservative state mandating that abortions only be done in the cases Mr. Mittens mentions in his platform, some person suing the state legislature for voting into law something unconstitutional, and that would be it, yeah?

Either way, the 'relevant case' argument seems like it's pretty weak ?

Cyrus said...

@Tess Tickles:

> You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are.

Do you realize how seriously fucked up it is to use "bullied boy" (i.e. "having been the target of physical and emotional abuse as a youngster") as part of an insult?

In your opinion is Bob, or anyone else here voicing their opinion in the safety of the Internet "due for a wedgie"? Do you call landmine victims "tardy little stumpies" when they somehow manage to annoy you? Just curious.

Anonymous said...

...did... did Bob just encourage the "treat your political part like your sports team" mentality?

Bob... I seriously wanted to keep things nice, but go fuck yourself. Seriously... just do it. This is the WORST advice you can give anyone on voting. It's that mentality that is why we are in the polarized mess we are in today.

Sorry, Bob... but I am voting for the man I choose and what he brings to the table... but I can't imagine him being worse then what we have..... not that you would understand that... being a "team player" and all that.

- Megabyte

PS: Seriously, Bob... go fuck yourself.

David said...

@Romney/Ryan '12

You're correct. He's going to win, and THEN they're going to blame it on the storm hitting the east coast.

Oh well, it'll give the pissheads a bottle to suck on.

Tess Tickles said...

No Cyrus, I'm pretty sure a lot of people if not everyone has been bullied in their childhood.

I was making fun of Bob for still not getting over what happened to him as a child like a grown man would.


In one of his past videos (can't remember which) Bob says he joined a gym to offset the large amount of sitting on his ass time. I would recommend he work out until he sweats or very tired, so he would get a good nights rest. He would have less stress and possibly come off as a more reasonable guy (like in some of his Big Picture episodes) and less like an elitist pseudo tough guy jackass.

Anonymous said...

Look at how the rest of the world feels about your election.

To us it just seems like America is like a big ass 16th century country trying to control us all.
For example in sweden 90% aprox would be voting Democratic. That means most "Right wingers" here would be voting for your so called "left" That's how skewed your country is.

Tess Tickles said...

No Cyrus, I'm pretty sure a lot of people if not everyone has been bullied in their childhood.

I was making fun of Bob for still not getting over what happened to him as a child like a grown man would.


In one of his past videos (can't remember which) Bob says he joined a gym to offset the large amount of sitting on his ass time. I would recommend he work out until he sweats or very tired, so he would get a good nights rest. He would have less stress and possibly come off as a more reasonable guy (like in some of his Big Picture episodes) and less like an elitist pseudo tough guy jackass.

KevinCV said...

This is probably off-topic, but it jumped out at me at the comments section and I want to call out those 2 people for their disrespect, namely "billy" and "Anonymous 1:44 am". I'm referring to those people who expressed surprise that Bob mentioned "prayers" at the beginning of this entry, for those keeping track.

How fucking insensitive are you assholes?! Do you even know how bad this storm is? Just because someone is very critical of religion doesn't mean he doesn't mean he can't say "Thoughts and prayers with the people experiencing whatever disaster is occurring at that given time"!

Hell, George Carlin wasn't exactly subtle in his critiques of religion, but he still thought Jesus Christ was a cool guy. Jesus was even the first person listed when he mentioned "People who told us to live in harmony and try to love one another" (his words).

Bob could've just as easily ignored the situation and not said anything about the people experiencing the hurricane, but you probably would've leaped on him for that, too.

Instead, you're expressing surprise that he's actually being considerate and extending that kind of emotional support to those going through that shit? Way to be the bigger men, guys. It's making me all the more hopeful for humanity going forward.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, haters, but Bob is right on all counts here.

Obama's been a pretty good president. Not great, but pretty good. He could be truly great in a second term when he no longer has to worry about re-election, but in the meantime, he's accomplished good things that I support.

In the meantime, the Republican Party, as an organization, has demonstrated that it should never, ever be given any power. I see that a lot of conservative or moderate commenters here want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but honestly, the whole party should be regarded with apprehension and disgust. The reason is pretty straightforward: the entire agenda of the party is to increase the advantage of the powerful over the powerless. This is true when they try to cut unemployment benefits, when they try to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain, when they try to take away women's civil rights and deny civil rights to gay soldiers and gay couples, when they try create a tax system that lets multimillionaires pay 13% and forces me to pay 25% while calling me a "slacker" and a "dependent", and it's true when they engage in massive campaigns of voter suppression in response to nonexistent problems of voter fraud. In fact, a whole secondary reason for finding Republicans kind of disgusting has to do with their base's inability to be honest in its quest to reach its goals: Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (bullshit), Trickle Down Economics (bullshit), The Death Penalty Deters Crime (bullshit), Abortion is About Saving Fetuses (bullshit, it's about controlling women or you'd be pro-contraception), America is a Christian Nation (massive, massive bullshit), The Welfare State is the biggest source of waste and fraud, Racism is over, Women aren't oppressed or discriminated against but laws that ensure that are bad, Global Warming is a conspiracy, Christianity is under attack, blah blah blah lies.

I know the vitriol is unattractive, but I can't help it. They're just gross.

Mitt Romney's election would give them power. They can't use it wisely. Bush's administration proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no reason to believe that a man of no personal convictions other than the idea that his taxes should be low would keep those people under control.

The Democratic party is pretty lame. They're not brave, they're sometimes corrupt, and they don't always do a good job. But they are the only party, of the two choices we have, that is *trying* to do a good job. So there's really no choice at all, and that's the real tragedy.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

Well.. I got a question after having read a lot of these comments.

That Detroit thing, and stuff that has gone to shit the last few years in the US.

Is it Obamas fault for not fixing things quick enough

Is it the after effects of Bush's reign?

Or is it a mix of both?

If the answer is the third one.. then it's still not a really good reason to vote for Romney is it? I mean.. he does represent the same politics that Bush does, and if it is in part the after effect of Bush's politics having been dominate for eight years, electing some-one whom thinks like him probably wont help.

Nixou said...

Allow me to provide a translation of Tickles thinking:

"Getting over what happened like a grown man would." = Never talking about it such lying by omission about how abuse received as a child color one's view of the world.

***

"For example in sweden 90% aprox would be voting Democratic. That means most "Right wingers" here would be voting for your so called "left" That's how skewed your country is."

Do not overestimate how "civilized" us Europeans are compared to the US: the USA is, thanks to its reliance of the first-past-the-post ballot, screwed by its two-party system, which means that instead of dwelling on the fringes, the far-right has taken control of one of the main parties through entriism: if such a system was as prevalent in Europe, the local conservatives would have become the lackeys of the far-right as well.

In fact, you don't have to look further than Britain: the elites of the british conservative party know how much their country's economy depends on Europe, yet, they reliably peddle europhobic bullshit because the first-past-the-post parliamentary elections means they need the votes of chauvinistic morons if they want to have a shot at winning.

Anonymous said...

@Sofie: Both Romney AND Obama will continue Bush's atrocious policies. Just look at Obama's current record (kill list, drone strikes, troop surges in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Libya, continuing war on drugs, indefinite detention, bloated bailouts to corrupt businesses, ect).

Cyrus said...

@Nixou: Maybe we have it all wrong and being bullied is just one of these healthy experiences Calvin's parents always refered to as "character building"...

Anonymous said...

There's no equivalency at all between Bush's policy of starting wars with countries that posed no immediate danger to the United States (and which, incidentally, served as a check on the military ambitions of Iran) while killing thousands and thousands of civilians and Obama's drone strike policy. As upsetting as the strikes are, they cause much less collateral damage, put US citizens at less risk, and do not carry with them a massive responsibility for Nation Building with all the attendant problems of occupying foreign countries. Don't make that mistake.

Andrew said...

@Sofie

Detroit's been dying since the 1970s. It rose and fell with the US Auto industry, and that was fatally undercut by Japan and the oil crisis way back when.

Presidents don't have much of an effect on the economy. Bush doesn't deserve much blame for what happened, and Obama doesn't deserve blame for not having reversed everything in four years. It was an economic bubble that burst, same as has been happening in every boom and bust cycle for centuries. Those come into being when speculators are able to mislead the public into over-investing in the wrong things, and once the truth comes out that their investments were never worth anything, the market collapses, the few who manipulated the bubble end up richer than ever, and the rest end up poorer. That's beyond any president, that's institutional corruption, and everyone in a position of power does it.

The rising financial inequality in this country is the symptom and the legacy of these bubbles. The only thing a president (or a party) could do about this is to promote a progressive tax rate to partly alleviate the worst of this inequality, which, of course, the GOP is firmly opposed to.

The monster deficit is a long-term problem, and THAT is partly Bush's responsibility. He cut taxes on everyone (mostly on the rich), and spent money furiously on utterly wasteful enterprises like the Iraq War. Obama's been running up the tab even more, on bailouts that further rewarded the same investment firms that built up and popped that bubble without any real accountability. At the very least, though, his policies MAY end up giving SOMETHING back through better access to healthcare, but the GOP will do everything (and has successfully done a lot) to make that fail, just so they can then use that against him. And even if the GOP fails to stop it, it will still bankrupt the country. Regardless of whether or not we get anything back for it, the money's spent, it won't ever come back, and they're going to spend more.

Both parties are ruining the economy, neither party is going after any of those responsible for the current situation (because the rich own Congress and fund presidents) or doing anything to prevent it from happening again (the bailouts only made it MORE likely this will happen again). The only real difference is whether we'll have a shitty half-assed (but still extremely expensive) health care program, or if we'll just save that money for future wars. That's America's real choice in seven days. Pick your poison.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

@Andrew

Well.. since I life in Denmark not the US...

I'll just elect to stay here thank you very much.

But I do follow American politics regardless, both by reading enternet articles and well.. simply watch the news as they do send US politics here in Denmark, for a reason.

What-ever happens over there, what-ever you elect, it will in the long term effect me also, because you are that big a super-power, my country is a flie in comparison, a little dot, a spec of dust.
The Economic bobble may originated at your place, but it is most certainly affecting my place to, and I as a person has felt the effects on my life, personal and working (I work with disabled people so yeah.. they are much worse of now then they were fice years ago, and each year they are still worse off.) very rapidly, these last eight years.

Well.. as your countries left thing is my exstreme right wing. And I am a left thing ene within my own countries standards.. i am a social-liberalist, and yes that's a thing, it should be obvious what I am crossing my fingers for here.

You may call your health-care half-assed, but well, it's still brand new and people hasn't really been demanding to be allowed it yet, people havn't yet stood up for it and demanded they should have it because the concept is still foreign.
But if you can get to a point where some politician suggest taking it away again and the people go. "What, no? this is our right, you can't do that!" .. then we might be getting some-where, because then the over-all view among the people has shifted.

Politics in the ideal world should be about the people, and about what is best for the people. But only few politics runs for the people more than they just run for themselves, and that's what makes it rotten, that's not just a US problem that's a universal problem as power positions does attract ass-holes whom needs compensation to get their self-esteem feeded.

Out of Romeny and Obama.. I think it's a bit obvious seeing whom is thinking most about the actual people.

But boy howdie, wouldn't it be nice if politicians could start arguing with clear facts instead of big ideals? then we would might be getting some-where!

Anonymous said...

@Sofie: Nothing to say about Obama's atrocious record on military action and civil liberties?

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

@Anonymous

Nothing that doesn't faints in the comparison to Bush's actions in Iraque, the even earlier actions in Vietman and oh well.. just continous assaults on oil countries that is nothing new at all but some-thing that has gone on ever since after second world war.

If you have to pick between two evils.. not voting for the lesser evil is still voting for the bigger evil that won. Because the vote you didn't cast is the vote that didn't go against him.

Also.. if you don't vote you don't have a right to complain really, then you pushed away your responsibility for the future of the country.

How-ever, if you do vote, you earned to right to yell. "GOD DAMMIT I GOT YOU INTO THAT OFFICE! NOW DO STUFF!" for the next four years.

Anonymous said...

@Sofie: The lesser of two evils is still evil. If there is a better alternative, then you go for THAT, or you continue to endure stagnation and/or regression.

Cyrus said...

Define "better alternative".

Paul said...

You know, after listening to Bob's ridiculous tirade I am no more inclined to vote than I was before. Which is not at all. I'm on Team: Fuck Everybody And/Or Everything That Has To Do With Politics.

Reps, Dems, Indies, libs, cons? The only descision that I'd approve regarding all of them would be about how fast they could all get loaded into a rocket and shot straight into the fucking sun!

As far as I am concerned, if you're interested in politics in any way then YOU! are what's wrong with America. Why not just live your fucking lives and leave everyone else alone? And that's all politics is. Imposing(or seeking to) your ideas/opinions/beliefs on others because you think some how you just know better.

FUCK THAT! I could really not care less which of these two collosal assholes wins the white house but listening to Bob's rant gave me at least one pleasurable thing to look forward to in the event of a Romney victory: It'll be fun just to see Bob's head swell up with rage and nearly burst. I'd pay to see that.

Anonymous said...

Bob said "thoughts and prayers to my fellow hurricane-weatherers"

What the hell is a self-proclaimed atheist doing praying for other people?

Seems to me that Bob is just being a pretentious, self-congratulatory gasbag.

Aiddon said...

you do realize that theism has nothing to do with prayer, right? Heck, Buddhism is an atheistic religion and that has prayers.

Anonymous said...

@ Paul

Heh. You know, the Ancient Greeks used to literally have people like you dragged to town meeting with paint stripes on them so people would make fun of their counterproductive apathy.

Politics is people working together for the common good. We can't "leave each other alone" because society doesn't work that way. Somebody has to make rules and codes of conduct, somebody has to enforce them, etc etc. You can't escape just because it's hard.

I know it's really painful for you to be around other people who have opinions they want to convince you of, but the fact is that you have a responsibility, as a member of a society, to have a damn opinion, to listen to other people, and to try to influence society for what you see as the best. Anything less than that is just cowardly, boring nihilism.

Aristotle said "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." I guess you think you're a God, but you sound like a beast to me.

I'd say it'd be better if you didn't vote, but the reality is, the best thing is if you vote a straight Democratic ticket. The Republican party basically sounds exactly like you, decrying cooperation in their quest to enrich the wealthy, and they need to go down.

Anonymous said...

@Aiddon
"Theism has nothing to do with prayer"
Are you retarded?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prayer
Prayer is the act of beseeching supernatural or metaphysical sources for help.
People who don't believe in the supernatural, yet still say shit like "my prayers are with them" are just trying to congratulate themselves for not actually doing anything.

Aiddon said...

again, prayer does not have to be done by a theist. Theism just means "belief in a creator deity"; you can be religious and be an atheist at the same time (again, Buddhism due to a lack of a creator). But then again, since you started a comment by engaging in a personal attack it's obvious that is beyond your mind's ability to comprehend. Toodles.

Andrew said...

@Sofie

Oh, I know your story. I'm a regular commenter at the Agony Booth. :)

There actually is something that Europe can do to help out the US, and by extension, themselves. Right your own economies. Fix healthcare over there and keep it financially viable, and you'll make it more attractive to skeptics over here. You wanna help keep America's deficit down?

Get the US military off of your continent, and replace it with an effective joint-European military that doesn't need the US to co-ordinate it and lead it whenever it's deployed anywhere. That'll help keep US military spending down, and hopefully make it harder for war hawks to sell the public on the idea of more costly expeditions that do nothing but benefit those corporation that fund them in exchange for no-bid contracts in the next war.

American social liberals (either Dems or third party like myself) frequently look to Europe as an example of what we'd like the US to be more like, but if your economies are even more insolvent than ours and you're having an even harder time dealing with immigration, it makes the idea of a more socially liberal America seem unfeasible to us (and even more undesirable to conservatives).

I do agree with you that once healthcare is established, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of (even prominent Republicans don't dare speak about rolling back Social Security), but that's not a good thing unless universal health care can be made affordable. And given the incredibly-expensive and not-very-popular half-measure they've passed, and the lack of any substantial benefits appearing thus far, it's already shaping up to be a money sink. To be honest, I don't even know where those trillions went.

Even if Romney wins and the GOP somehow takes the Senate, the most they could do is kill future funding, probably not until the 2014 budget at the earliest. Meaning that everything that had been spent thus far is gone, somewhere, and we'll never see it again. The biggest drains on the deficit are Social Security and Medicare, but you can't touch that or you'll lose the senior vote (aka Florida). And you can't raise taxes because the voters will throw you out in the midterms for that.

Say, how's Greece looking? You have a better view, dontcha?

Anonymous said...

@Aiddon
Again, what's the point of praying to an entity you don't believe in?

Answer: attention

Andrew said...

@Anonymous

Or inclusion. Even if you don't believe in a god, it still can be a nice thing to speak of prayers in case someone else does. Not everyone's a pedantic hardass.

Cyrus said...

@Andrew: Greece is actually one of the reasons I have mostly resigned myself to vote on social issues alone. If I'm going to live in an economy that is through-and-through built on astronomical debt, both in the public and private sector, we might as well progress as a species a little, before all the untennable make-belief cash is thrown out for the next paradigm.

That is to say, yes, universal health care is an ungodly money-pit. Everywhere. Just get used to the idea, if you want the positive social changes that come with it. Consider limiting pharmaceutical patents if you want to optimize things a little.

Anonymous said...

Bob, still waiting for you to defend the kill list, drone strikes, war on drugs, indefinite detention, and other failed Bush era policies that Obama continued. How many innocents have to suffer and die for you to get the "progress" you desire.

David said...

@Annonymous who started with "Sorry haters, but Bob is right on all counts here"


"I see that a lot of conservative or moderate commenters here want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but honestly, the whole party should be regarded with apprehension and disgust."

Which commenters are these?


"The reason is pretty straightforward: the entire agenda of the party is to increase the advantage of the powerful over the powerless."

Sure, sure. Let's take a look. I mean, it's sooooo stupid to come out with 'Obama's a communist' or 'anti-colonialist', even though those are things that lots of people approve of and adore. We shouldn't even CONSIDER arguing about whether or not Obama is a communist, because it's so stupid that it doesn't even warrant discussion. Let's all wail on that 2016 movie without even watching it.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=42948&p=717304

But just straight calling people racist, sexist and hating the poor and powerless, that's fine. THAT is actually worth talking about. Sure, fine, whatever. Let's talk about it.

****

"This is true when they try to cut unemployment benefits,"

Unemployment benefits to who? Specific, much?

****

"...when they try to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain..."

Collective bargaining = going on strike and still getting paid. That's a load of shit. We live in a free market where nobody can force you to work or force you to buy their product. But as Big Gay Al said it best: freedom is a two-way street. YOU can't force someone else to hire you or keep you employed. If you don't like the way your boss is treating you, you go get a different job. If there's no better job to get, then tough luck, it's not your boss's fault. I'm sure he wishes he didn't have such whiny and entitled workers.

Now, private workers can strike all they want. If a bunch of private, non-government individuals want to start a union and constantly protest for higher wages, that's fine (just like how it's fine for a company to NOT HIRE them if that company so chooses). But public employees, like public teachers? The taxpayer pays them. That means that we are their bosses. And if you, as a taxpayer, didn't like it when the teachers in Chicago put children out of school for a week over dumb, trivial crap (I mean people are NOT dropping like flies in coal mines any more, Jesus Christ people), you have a right to slap those people into shape and get them to stop wasting your money.

****

"...when they try to take away women's civil rights..."

Oh yippity yoo. This one. This one alllllways comes. I love how, despite the Republicans being so anti-woman, that so many women are comfortable voting for them and, you know, BEING Republican politicians. Moving on, I ask you, what, exactly, are 'they' trying to do that will take away women's rights?

No, no I do absolutely know exactly what you're going to say already, but I want you to say it; I want you to personally experience how retarded the tired arguments sound coming out of your own mouth. I mean fingers.

[continued...]

David said...

[...continued]

"...and deny civil rights to gay soldiers and gay couples..."

Gay people? Okay, this might be a long one, but...

Pro traditional marriage =/= anti gay people.

Now that's not to say that NO anti-gay marriage proponents are also homophobic. There are a number of them, for sure, but they're the absurd, freak minority. The Democrats had a former KKK leader in Congress until the year two-thousand-and-bloody-ten, but the DNC isn't called racist just because of that.

Look, I know it's a tough issue, and it's one that I'm not totally decided on myself, but marriage is *not* a right. It's an arbitrary societal institution. That's NOT NOT NOT to say that it isn't a good idea. I think, as an idea, it sounds just fine. But it's not a 'right'. It's not the same as having to stand in different lines and sit in the back of the bus.

And even if marriage WERE a right, well, it's still not as simple and clear-cut as you may think (or wish it was). Let me explain.

Marriage, in most Western society right now, is this: A union between one man and one woman.

By comparison, a flight of stairs, right now, is this: A series of horizontal-sloping steps, angled in a manner as to allow travel along a vertical plane.

See? Those are the current definitions of those two things. Now, two men aren't being rendered unable to marry because they're gay; their gayness is rendering them unable to marry. Because, by definition, two people of the same sex CAN'T get married.

By the same logic, a person in a wheelchair is not being 'discriminated' against for not being able to go up a flight of stairs. Hatred of disabled folk is not why that guy can't get up those stairs. It's the simple fact that HE can't go on the stairs, not the stairs can't accept him.

But, but, but, but, but, but, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, marriage is--as I said--a societal institution, and it can take on different meanings if society chooses it to be so. Therefore, if we decide to change the defintion of marriage, to:
"A union between two people, period"

Then that would be totally fine! If the same sex marriage movement could just run on THIS platform, rather than the false-premise of it being a civil rights issue, I would be much more onto the idea.

But really, after all that, I think you can see why JUST not support gay marriage doesn't automatically make you homophobic. Marriage has been something intended for heterosexual couples throughout human history. Even ancient Rome--which was VERY approving of homosexuality--still saw marriage as between a man and a woman. So really, the gay community is asking society to do them a favor. The gay community is asking that society change itself to accommodate them. Again, it may be a good idea, but it's still not something that someone is a jerk for just because they feel changing marriage would devalue it to them.

****

Gay SOLDIERS, on the other hand, I see more validity in. Not much, but a little. I don't see why sexuality should be hidden in the military. I do, however, agree with what Rick Santorum (who I'm sure you all just looooove) was talking about when he said 'sex doesn't have ANY place in the military, straight or gay'. Makes sense to me. A guy being gay can be distracting and a waste of time in the military. I get it.

Republicans and everybody else who supports the idea behind don't ask don't tell are NOT homophobic just because of that. They just--at very, very worst--subscribe to a policy (intended to PROTECT gay soldiers, mind you; read the whole "don't ask" part) that backfires in some respects. I mean, wouldn't an ACTUALLY homophobe want gays out of the military period? Why are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and damn near every Repub inbetween so okay and cool about it?

[continued...]

David said...

[...continued]

"...when they try create a tax system that lets multimillionaires pay 13% and forces me to pay 25%..."

You didn't watch the debates, did you?

Did you know Romney has a less conservative tax plan that just about every Republican who ran against him in the primary? Newt and Herman Cain both supported a flat tax. That way everybody pays the same rate. Now that is progressive equality if you ask me.

Most conservatives would like a flat tax. Though Romney isn't giving them that, even if they'd prefer it.

But still, did you watch the debates?

****

"...while calling me a "slacker" and a "dependent"..."

Do you take in government money or support? If so, how would you do if that support was taken away? If that would be DEVASTATING, then you're dependent on government. If you also are not trying--or wish you could try--to become INdependent, then you are a slacker.

If you are neither of these things, then great! Conservatives are not talking about you when they talk about dependent slackers.

The GOP's motto right now is to get people less dependent on government. They're not saying "you're dependent so you suck", they're saying "you're dependent and we want to help you".

****

"...and it's true when they engage in massive campaigns of voter suppression in response to nonexistent problems of voter fraud..."

Voter fraud is voter suppression. If one guy votes twice, that cancels out one guy who voted for the other candidate.

Also, what 'massive campaigns of voter suppression' are you talking about here? Voter ID laws? Laws that require you to prove who you are in order to be able to vote? Who is this going to suppress? People without faces?

And yes, again, I know exactly what you're going to say. And again, I want you to say it. Go on ahead, dude. *grabs oxygen supply in the event I choke on laughter*

****

"In fact, a whole secondary reason for finding Republicans kind of disgusting has to do with their base's inability to be honest in its quest to reach its goals..."

Ooh, this should be good.

****

"Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (bullshit)"
Solid evidence and intelligence pointed to WMDs existing. Damn near every major country agreed that they existed. Ever thought that maybe--realizing they were coming to snoop around--Saddam got rid of them or something?

Even then, why isn't it a good idea to act upon solid evidence and smoke out the possibility of evil people having dangerous weapons?

****

"Trickle Down Economics (bullshit)"
Actually, they are, because that's not what it's called

Yeah 'trickle down' was actually the term made up by people who didn't like Reagan's "Supply Side Economics".

But call it what you like, please, for the love of God tell me what's wrong with this logic:

"The more money people have, the more people spend money"

Because that's a concept conservative economic policy is all about. Please give me one damn reason this is false.

****

"The Death Penalty Deters Crime (bullshit)"

A criminal wouldn't consider changing his future actions based on the possibility of death? How can you prove this?

[continued...]

David said...

[...continued]

"Abortion is About Saving Fetuses (bullshit...)"

The issue of life is another that I'm not terribly decided on.

On one hand, I've never heard any solid, scientific explanation as to why the right to life begins at the moment of conception.

However, I sure as heck haven't heard anything CLOSE to a solid, scientific explanation as to why the right to life DOESN'T begin there.

If a zygote is a human being, we shouldn't kill it. We all agree on this, right? So can we have this discussion? I've tried dozens of times but have never gotten anywhere with it. I just get called a hateful anti-woman bigot half the time (I was even called a 'black hearted monster' once. For QUESTIONING the pro-choice position!)

****

"...it's about controlling women or you'd be pro-contraception"

Yes, yes the contraception thing.

I think this really, honestly, finally takes the cake for worst, most baseless, most retarded argument levied against the GOP/right wing this election cycle. Let Lee Doren say it best:
http://youtu.be/acrUkXZiym0

****

"America is a Christian Nation (massive, massive bullshit)"

It was based on principles and values, largely taken from the Bible. Most of the founding fathers believed in some kind of God, mostly the Christian God.

"But if America is founded on Christian values, why is it not REQUIRED that everyone be Christian?"

Because that is actually one of the Christian values. Yeah, the Bible makes it pretty clear that the government should not do the work the Church should be doing, and that forcing people to be Christians is NOT okay.

Oh yes, please, PLEASE do what you guys do every damn time and quote some cherry picked verse from the OLD testament, and please completely misunderstand the concept behind the New Testament.

****

"The Welfare State is the biggest source of waste and fraud"

Over one and a half TRILLION dollars in 2011 was spent on entitlements. You could eliminate our entire military and still run a deficit that year because of Social Security, Medicare and the like.

And after all that, after trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars gets poured into these programs, what do we have? Contrast poverty today with poverty from the mid 1960's when the Democrats first 'declared war' on it. What has all that money gotten us besides a debt bigger than our GDP?

Yeah, sounds pretty damn wasteful to me.

[continued...]

David said...

[...conclusion]

"Racism is over"

You're right; when millions of Americans were willing to vote for someone they barely know just because he's black, racism is far from over in this country.

****

"Women aren't oppressed or discriminated against but laws that ensure that are bad"

The 'good pro-woman' law The Lilly Ledbetter act just ensures that selfish, entitled women get the same pay as a man even if she is less productive and less profitable for the company, just because she has the same job title. While hard working, mature women get punished with the hefty lawsuit risk the Ledbetter act attaches to hiring a woman.

****

"Global Warming is a conspiracy"

People have been claiming the world is going to end for a long, long time. It's not a 'conspiracy' as much as it is people all subconsciously going along with the idea, because it gives them the feeling of being an awesome hero who's saving the world. And because it gives them a thing to attack political opponents with.

Look, I'm not a scientist, but I AM aware that the world, on net balance, has not warmed or cooled very much in the past few decades. Oh, but the disaster will really kick in in 20 or whatever years, right? That's what they said 20 years ago. And 20 years before that.

****

"Christianity is under attack, blah blah blah lies."


****
You can't really say that Christianity is not under attack in a post that attacks Christianity. And yes, atheism is under attack too.
****
****

In conclusion: Thank you, sir, for at least making a well-written post that was easy on the eyes. Also, it had a nice, speedy flow that gave me the opportunity to break down almost all of the BS floating out there about Republicans right now all at once. So thanks again.

Oh and thanks to everyone who, you know, actually read all this.

RKissoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RKissoon said...

@David: Thank you for that essay. I didn't read the whole thing, because a snarky, condescending attitude is in most cases a red flag marking an overinflated, undeserved ego, but at least you made arguments, rather than crapping in your hand and flinging it at your computer screen like some commenters (i.e. James).

But I must address one point: gay marriage is a civil rights issue, because the concept of marriage has been written into American law. For example, the Social Security system provides benefits to the surviving spouses of deceased American citizens. If a man pays Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes for the duration of his career, then dies, his spouse collects the benefits he would have received if he were still alive. That is, if his spouse is female. If his spouse is male, then that spouse gets nothing. That's a violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires that every citizen must be treated equally under the laws of the United States.

@Libertarians: Stop acting like you're somehow smarter than the rest of us "sheep" for voting third party. If you really were smart, you'd realize that the only way to get libertarians elected to federal office would be to change election laws, starting with achieving proportional representation in the House. After all, the constitution says states' representation in the House has to be proportional to population size, but not that those representatives have to be from districts. If we change election law to abolish the district system, and achieve something closer to open party list proportional representation for state delegations, Libertarian candidates would be more likely to get elected to office (and we'd also solve all the problems of gerrymandering). I say all of this because I am a libertarian.

@Everyone else: Yes, Bob comes off as dismissive and snarky. That's because he makes no effort to seem conciliatory or hide his partisan-ness. He takes a definite, conclusive, confident stand on politics, which we are no accustomed to in these times. We are used to people who try to seem non-partisan so they can reach a larger audience and keep their credibility. Most people are too afraid of seeming biased (and thus unworthy of being taken seriously) to actually expose their unequivocated positions, so when someone actually does that, it strikes audiences as hostile. Actually Bob did a Big Picture episode related to this titled "Fair Game", which can be seen here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2679-Fair-Game

That being said, I could understand actual hostility to conservatism. After all, it seems from the last four years that many conservatives are openly hostile to the things I care about, like strict separation of church and state. And when I say strict, I mean STRICT, as in I do not want any politicians making any decisions based on their religious beliefs. I am not against religion, or religious people holding office. But just as a CEO has to make decisions which are in the company's interests rather than his, leaders and legislators have to make decisions based on the constitution and what, according to the logic of actual science, is better for the country.

Now, because I believe in openness, let me say who I am: I am a young, non-white, educated, secular, middle class person, which means the only way I can be more squarely in the "Obama Coalition" is if were female and homosexual. I'm going to vote for Obama. But I am in no way a "liberal". After all, I also work on Wall Street, which as we all know, isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism.

(And to the people who point out how much money Barry O got from Wall Streeters last time around: they did it because they were smart. They knew Obama would win, and on Wall Street we don't care about ideologies. We care about success.)

However, I cannot in good conscience vote for republican policies. For me, as a pragmatist, rights and security are more important than lower taxes or religious dogma.

Nixou said...

"American social liberals (either Dems or third party like myself) frequently look to Europe as an example of what we'd like the US to be more like, but if your economies are even more insolvent than ours"

Ok: first things first:
the US public debt: 101,7% of the GDP
EU's public debt: 83,4% of the GDP, and that's counting the Greek bailout which by itself costed us more than the US stimulus.

Also, remember: when a US state has a problem with its budget, it sends its representative crying for help in Washington. When an EU member states starts having problems, elected officials and pundits in the richer member states start talking about using starvation to teach a lesson to the "misbehaving kids". A lot of the european drama comes from the fact that what is done automatically in the US always demands a vote of both the heads of state/government and of the European Parliament.

Buuuut, unlike what you seem to believe, the European Union has not been frozen and inactive: for instance starting 2014 the ECB will start to oversee every.single.bank in the Eurozone (that's 6.000 banking and investment institutions), which will give it an enormous influence over the non-Euro using european banks, and over the american banks owned by European consortiums.
And you know the best part of it? While the wingnuts were busy calling Obama a radical marxist because of his very prudent attempts to somewhat reform Wall-Street, the conservative Chancellor of Germany demanded, the mosty conservative heads of states and governments of the Eurozone accepted, and the majoritarily conservative European Parliament voted for what may be the most powerful bureaucratic juggernaut ever made.

Anonymous said...

@ Dave

See, yeah, that was me before. I am really impressed that you were able to lay out a counterargument to all of my assertions, and I appreciate you having done so.

I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind, sir. You are an eloquent and (for the internet) extremely respectful interlocutor.

But listen: I've read all the arguments you made before, and since I'm posting anonymously, I'm going to tell you what I think of them:

I think that if you believe all the stuff you said, you're an asshole.

Take just the gay marriage debate: if you oppose even the weakest version of the pro-Gay Marriage argument, which is that being allowed to get married would make gay people feel better, you're an asshole. There are better arguments, but they're not necessary, because gay people getting married does not disrupt your life, it just makes somebody else's better, and opposition to that is just pure douchebaggery. My mind cannot be changed. I really and truly believe that you are a kind of crummy person for believing what you believe, and I'm sorry that you have to go through your life being that way.

Or take "supply side" economics. Yes, I totally called them "trickle down"...sorry to not, like, respect the most massively fraudulent, failed economic theory in American history like that, but it doesn't work. Here's why it doesn't work (I know you know this, I can't believe anybody really thinks it's a good idea): The way to get economic growth is to increase the velocity of money through increasing aggregate demand, which means that you need to put the most money possible in the hands of as many people as possible. Rich people are not useful for that purpose, because all they can do when they have a ton of money is invest it, and after awhile you start to see either a) diminishing returns, because nobody can buy the products made by the businesses in which they are investing, or b) investment overseas, which is why Bain Capital keeps outsourcing...oops, sorry, "offshoring" jobs.

Also, read yerself some economics. I recommend Matt Yglesias. Do you know what they'll tell you? The war on poverty *worked*. Medicare and Medicaid significantly improved the health care of the poor and elderly. Social Security helps a LOT of old people. Food stamps help a lot of poor kids. And unemployment benefits...I mean all of them, not just the ones for veterans Republicans tried to cut, or the job placement for veterans Republicans blocked in the house, but literally *all* unemployment benefits for everyone (which Republicans also tried to stop)keep people from losing their shit and are helping people. That's not a source of waste and fraud, that's a policy victory, and the reason you don't like it is because, as a Republican, you are not a very good person, so you don't care about the people being helped, and in fact you're irrationally angry at them for getting free stuff even though the reality is that if they weren't, the attendant social problems would negatively impact your life. When was the last time you saw a neighborhood burn itself to the ground, my friend? When was the last time you saw a breadline? Stop knocking social welfare. You wouldn't want to see this country without it.

Anonymous said...

Ok, last thing, you asked me to make this argument so I could experience its futility, so I shall: I feel extremely retarded for thinking that women ought to be able to decide what happens to them when they get pregnant no matter what the cause of the pregnancy. I acknowledge that it must be a birth defect of some form that makes me think that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe, and that the Tea Party state legislatures across the country who have been trying to pass personhood amendments, destroy access to abortion using red tape, mandate ultrasounds, etc. are psychotically committed to this goal. The congenital brain issue that I have is similar to the one that fills me with contempt for your mindless position on Climate Change, because I also have looked at the science on sentience so I can tell whether or not abortion is murder (spoiler: it is not murder). Sadly, thanks to the warped neural connections I am forced to spend each day channeling my broken thoughts through, I can't help but believe that what Conservatives don't like about abortion (and contraception - sorry, but Rick Santorum said it and Romney supported the Blunt amendment, so that's their position) is that they don't like it when women have sex that they didn't give permission for. And to that I say, fuck you guys. Seriously. You're not good people. I sincerely hope you lose every election forever.

Sorry about the name calling, it's just that I really can't stand you people.

Anonymous said...

Here's a more polite version of what I just said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

Jason McKenney said...

I am SO tired of this.

If you have $100,000 in college loans to pay back, do you seriously expect to have them payed back in 4 years? That's what Obama faced coming into office.

Obama was handed a crisis that most people have compared to the Great Depression. It took FDR THREE re-elections to get shit straight. Obama's had four years. The expectations set for this man's presidency were just rediculously high more so than ANY president has ever faced. But that just isn't enough.

This is a pointless election. No matter who is elected the same bitching and moaning is going to occur for another four years cause things still won't change. It took 8 years(really 20+ if you go back far enough) to fuck this country up, and it's supposed to take another four to fix it? Give me a break. It's going to take a long time for us to get back up on our feet, so no matter WHO is elected, they're going to receive the same shit as the last four years.

Such pointless bickering back and forth.

FTR, I'm voting for Obama. Not because of the "Supreme Court" or records with "kill lists or drone strikes". No, because change is so slow in this country, I'm just voting for a scapegoat.

Cyrus said...

Speaking of FDR and his accomplishments, because my knowledge of history is a little hazy there: Did he get cockblocked in the House at every turn after only two years in office?

@Nixou: I'm actually a little proud of our conservatives, that they're imposing at least some measure of accountability on the banks. Although I still take offense at the fact that the general population is paying for the whole mess by way of slashed social programs across the continent.

Megabyte said...

@Cyrus: I hate to put it this way, but when those first 2 years were basically "we have the power so fuck you" did you expect anything different?

Of course I would also not be shocked based on that if least popular politician to the conservatives is NOT Obama, but Pelosi (hell that's how I see it)... but I think that's another story in it's own right.

Anonymous said...

Bob: still waiting for you to offer a defense of Obama's kill list, drone strikes, indefinite detention, civil liberties violations, and other things you'd be raking him over the coals over if he was a republican. Answer me, hypocrite. And don't give me this whole "he's leading me towards a more progressive future" bullshit you always spew. Progress does not have to entail innocent people suffering and dying.

David said...

@RKissoon
" the Social Security system provides benefits to the surviving spouses of deceased American citizens. If a man pays Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes for the duration of his career, then dies, his spouse collects the benefits he would have received if he were still alive. That is, if his spouse is female. If his spouse is male, then that spouse gets nothing. That's a violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires that every citizen must be treated equally under the laws of the United States."

Well what if that guy doesn't have a spouse? Is this nonexistent spouse still entitled to a monthly check? After all, the 14th amendment says ALL PEOPLE must be treated equally under the laws of the united states.

Two guys go to court. One littered and the other hijacked a bus full of children. What happens to them? The first guy pays a $200 fine, the other guy goes to prison for three years.

But wait, you can't do that; the 14th amendment said ALL PEOPLE must be treated equally under the law. Both those guys should get the same sentence.

See what I'm getting at here? No one is forcing you to marry a member of the same sex, that's your choice. Not having a female spouse is your fault, not the government's.

And before you say anything, please go back and read the marriage part my original post again.

Cyrus said...

@David: Do I have to point out how badly your "argument" is invalidated by a fundamental lack of internal logic or would you like to try again? This time without invoking vivid images of apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

One final comment in regards to Bob's flawed "don't vote for Obama but vote against Romney" argument: The lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Cyrus said...

@Megabyte: Except that the democrats only held a filibuster-safe majority in the senate for about six weeks in 2009 (RIP, Ted Kennedy), so no, those first two years were very different from how you seem to remember them.

Nixou said...

"I hate to put it this way, but when those first 2 years were basically "we have the power so fuck you" did you expect anything different?"

Ok, Megabyte is, unsurpisingly, lying.

And no, I'm not saying that he is a poor hapless idiot repeating lies told by others without knowing better: I'm saying that he is deliberately telling bullshit to justify his vote.

But enough about Megabytes himself, Allow me (or don't allow me, I'll do it anyway) to describe the extent of Bytes intellectual dishonesty and what it means in the grand scheme of things:

***

Bytes claim is built on the premise that in 2009 by virtue of having a majority in Congress the Democratic party could do whatever the fuck he wanted.

Aaaaaaaaaand
That's Bullshit.

Not only because as Cyrus noted The two years of super-duper-unbreakable-majority never happened in the first place, but also because Obama & co had the opportunity to actually browbeat the GOP into impotance for a few months, simply by increasing the tempo of Congress: give it a faster schedule, put on the floor the most important bills of their mandate as soon as possible, right them as ambitiously as they could, and hammer the GOP when Obama's popularity was at its peak.

The irony is, had the Democrats really said "we have the power so fuck you", more laws from their agenda would have passed (or the existing one would have passed sooner) causing less disapointment among the liberal base, leading to less loss in the midterm elections; and the stimulus could have been bigger, which would have meant less unemployment and no one talking much about the election today because Obama would be polling at 55% with the democrated party poised to take back the House.

In fact, the liberal base has not been happy that Obama refuse to turn into the kind of Liberal Thaumaturgic Emperor people like Bytes like to pretend he was, something which actually caused Obama himself to snap at them.

Now, to be fair, one of the reason the Obama administration acted the way it did was that at the time, the estimates availables did not grasp how shitty the economy was. Which makes in my opinion the blame the american left leveld at Obama slightly underserved: one can't honestly fault an elected official for not having a crystal ball.

But at least, the liberals' complains about Obama was based on reality: they deemed the Obama administration deeds insufficient, but at lest they based their opinion of what had actually happenned instead of masturbating publicly about the evil Radical Marxist-Muslim Overlord who never existed outside of fiction.

(end of part one)

Nixou said...

Part Two

And not only was the Cockblocking of Obama was not a legitimate reaction to an abuse of power or an unacceptable display of contempt toward the minority, but it was among the worst case of cockblocking ever made in the US history.
Not The worst: it did not reach the level of attempting a coup, or beating a political opponant within a inch of his life or commiting treason one's country in the name of the preservation of undue privileges, but it still was way worse that "politics as usual":

There was the numerous attempt to sabotage the government through blocking every nomination they could
For instance here
and here
and here
For some very obvious reasons:
"Advancing the longstanding GOP goal of undermining the public sector [and] weakening the ability of the Obama administration to deliver for voters in a national economic crisis and softening him up for an election defeat."

Or even by not allowing the Senate commitees to debate properly: in this example effectively forcing US veterans to remain homeless for a longer time as a retaliation against Democrats for winning a vote on the senate floor. (Which, by the way, shows that a big section of the American public fetichize its troops in order to hide the fact that they do not give a shit about the actual human beings who form them: otherwise, there would have been an uprising of the conservative base against its elected officials)

And it's not like stuff like this was caused by something in the water which turned conservative lawmakers insane: the conservative lawmakers have been subjected to unrelenting pressure from the right-wing punditry: "Debating is collaborating with the ennemy! Stop proposing amendments! Act like Jerks!".

***

But all of this is not really knew: of course, Obama attracks to his name even more hatred than the Clintons in their time because of his skin color, but, at the core, this is a pattern invented by Gingritch

The problem of the political process in Washington is that it's not built on written rules, but on customary norms: the US Congress was intented to be filled with high-minded intellectuals who would gentlemanly work out their differences.
And, for all these talks about the US government being about checks and balances, there is virtually no railling to stop a sociopathic demagogue from completely breaking institutions built on unwritten rules of good behavior.

What you're seeing know is merely the later episodes of an decades long campain to turn the US into a bullycracy.
Which actually explains to me why so many right-wing voters are repeating the bullshit spewed by the people they vote for: I daresay that the process is in nature similar to how a schoolyard bully build a small court of sycophants who take his side for fear that he would turn against them otherwise,

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

@Anonymous

Then what is the third alternative you speak off?
Sit back and do nothing in protest? oh yeah.. that'll sure chance things a lot.


@Andrew

heh, nice! amazing to know there's more than ten people around knowing who I am X)

Where does the money go? erh well.. honestly, it's impossible to convince any-body about you are saving money this way because it wont ever show up on any chards and no money will be returned persay to any box. Also while starting up, things gets exspensive.

But here's the thing, here's how free health-care on a long term safe money.. It'll prevent a lot of permanent damage.

Say.. what is a guy here called Pete, works on a factory, suddenly one day feels a pain in his shoulder. He decides not to go to a doctor because he cannot afford it.
Then suddenly the shoulder pains get worse, and worse, until one day, he can't work any-more, finally he is forced to go to that doctor and we find out, he has gotten a tendom damage, and in all the time he has worked it has gotten worse and worse.. and now it cannot be fixed any longer, and he cannot work any-more.
There-fore he is forced on a early pension and now the state has to pay for this pension of his.
How-ever, this could have been prevented if he had gone the doctor much sooner, where they could have told him what is wrong, given him only a months vacation to recover and then let him work again.

To let him go to that doctor and give him that vacation would be far cheaper for your country then in the end having to pay his early pension or just sustain him and so on.

how-ever, money like that will not show up on float-chards, only common sense will get to that conclusion and you can't use it in political debates because it is not immediate money and it will be years before any-one will be able to feel any kind of effect, much longer than mere four years.

I've been saying this for a long time.. but the way I see it your biggest problem is seriously all these ass insurance companies!

You know what those companies are? Those are an unnecary third link between you and the hospital, ideally all the money you pay here, should go to the hospitals! but they don't, they'll go to the insuerance companies which will spend those money only on themselves.

Here's the big golden deal I see by making health-care free.. You'll get rid of these insurance companies! you'll get rid of this third link, the money you spend on insurance wont go through that extra filther where they'll dissapear into rich mens pockets but go directly to the hospitals so more people can be treated in better ways.

The only draw-back by getting rid of these insurance companies is a lot of people will suddenly see themselves without a job, which sucks even more because of the times where jobs are needed.

But it's lesser evil compared to the huge evil that is going on here you people seriously need to get rid off! Who knows, with all that money before-hand going to office workers now going straight to the hospital, maybe those people could be hired as nurses and do some-thing actually good <_<

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

Oh, one last note.

Even all that being said.. about how having healthy people can safe you money.

On a strictly idealistic moral standpoint.. Why the fuck even be concerned about money? Why aren't leaders of a nation more concerned about simply just have the people they are supposed to lead being healthy, happy and content?

Anonymous said...

@Sofie: No, the alternative is a third party candidate, someone like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or Rocky Anderson.

Cyrus said...

As others have pointed out, a third presidential candidate will not win while the current electoral system is still in place. If you and the people dear to you (the latter being a rather flexible term, depending on your outlook on society) stand to lose absolutely nothing with either the democratic or the republican candidate in the White House, by all means, go for sending a message, rather than the pragmatic vote.

In the end, the change you desire will only be brought about gradually through an increase of third-party senators and representatives. The good news is, that even a relatively small number should liven up the political landscape considerably.

@Nixou: Earlier in these comments, we already saw the most insidious characteristic of such a "bullycracy" (I kinda dig the term): People will tell you that this is how it is and that you should just get over that fact ... "like a grown man" or something.

Nathan said...

@Anon James(I'm not 100% sure its you because I am hearing the same arguments but they are without the insults so I guess that is at least an improvement from the James we have been seeing here and the youtube comments)
Voting for a third party during a presidential election is the same as doing nothing or throwing your vote away. The electoral college is essentially built against any third parties and prevents them from getting any attention or steam behind them. No third party will ever have a remote chance of winning until that system is removed and replaced with a popular vote, and if enough of those third parties are elected into government positions for the media to include them into debates and the presidential discussion.

Anonymous said...

Thank you MB, It felt like you were talking directly to me. Also stop making fun of me.

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@Nathan: you only throw your vote away if you vote for a person you don't think will do a good job but are compromising your principles out of "party loyalty" or some other nonsense.

Nathan said...

@anon
Who says I am compromising all of my principals if I vote for the guy who I think will do a better job and has a better chance of winning? It is easy to say that Romney and Obama are the same when you are clearly so devoted to third party cause. These two men are very different, and you have to at least in your own opinion believe one guy can do a better job between R and B. If I only voted based on people I 100% believed in I would never vote. The only way there would be a candidate that I completely agreed with is if I were to run for president. But since I don't plan to run I vote for the guy that I mostly agree with and is also more likely to win. There is not a single poll that shows any candidate from a third party that has even a remote chance of winning a state let alone the presidency. To vote for a third party is nothing more than a symbolic vote of stubbornness. It esentially means that you were stubborn enough to stand in line, and make a vote that won't even have the slightest impact in the election.
Compromising is not this entirely bad thing. It just means that in this moment instead of trying to get what you want, you went for what was most practical.
But like I said in my previous post, third parties are not a bad idea, they just don't have any relevance in this pres.election.

Andrew said...

@Sofie

"Common sense" in the US is that people should look after themselves. If they don't, or can't, it's not the responsibility of the rest of society to look after them. Not everyone feels this way, but the majority regularly do. That's just a general cultural thing about the US. Collective welfare is not held as high as individual responsibility. And a lot of people view the very idea of collectivism in any form as akin to Bolshevism.

Regarding "Pete": There is no early pension for him anymore. New Petes today don't get pensions, they have 401k retirement plans that they have to pay into throughout their working life (automatically deducted from their paychecks, not unlike a tax), and which they can't usually touch until they're 60. If Pete injures himself and can no longer work, then he'd better already have enough stashed away in his 401k retirement plan or he's gonna have to find some other way to support himself. The idea that society at large will have to pitch in to support him is anathema to most Americans. Their feeling is that Pete is absolutely responsible for himself and his children, morally responsible for the rest of family, and, if he's a good guy (and can afford it), Pete can also take responsibility for his friends and (increasingly rarely) for his neighbors, though he doesn't have to. But if he's an adult, society at large is not responsible for him AT ALL. Unless his friends and family choose to help him out (as private citizens), he's screwed, and no one should be obligated to support him. That may seem cruel (and I'm not necessarily endorsing it), but that's that's how most Americans feel.

The only exception to this general rule - and the only part of the culture that a majority of the country feels some collective responsibility towards and from - is the military. Joining the military is considered a duty to society at large, a way of "giving back" to the rest of the country by accepting some responsibility to the greater whole, and the popular feeling is that society at large has an obligation to support the military in any way possible.

You can quote all the economic statistics you want about whether universal health care is more cost-effective in the long run. It's not gonna get you anywhere. This is a matter of VALUES, and you'll never win an election here by appealing to statistics (or details of any sort) over values. Never. And if these benefits are hidden, or the kind that you only notice when you don't notice them, it would be even harder to convince others that they should adjust their notions of "common sense". As long as a majority of Americans (or voters at least) feel that individual responsibility trumps societal responsibility, or at the very least feels that THEY don't want to pay any taxes to support others, this isn't going to change.

Private insurance companies aren't going anywhere. If anyone tried to get rid of them and FORCE people to turn to the government and the government only for health care, they'd get thrown out of office (one reason "Obamacare"'s single-payer option was never passed, despite the Dems controlling both houses of Congress). It would be seen as a clear threat to individual freedom, which is always going to win out over the welfare of society at large. Most people would rather deal with privately-owned insurance companies than with thegovernment; again, it's more of a values thing than anything.

Andrew said...

@Sofie, parte the seconde

Why be concerned about money? Because most people HATE the idea of the government taking ANY MONEY from them, and you're not going to convince them that it's worth it, even if the statistics would prove that it's worthwhile to them.

Example: I live in Seattle, in Western Washington, which is far more urbanized and oriented towards trade and manufacturing than Eastern Washington, which is more sparsely-populated and agricultural. For half my life, I've been hearing Easterners griping about how they HATE how their tax dollars are being spent in the Western counties, even though years of state financial reports state that far more tax dollars flow eastwards than westwards. But that doesn't matter: (some of) THEIR money is going west, and that's a clear sign of big government oppression by us big city folks. Values trump statistics. Alaska is the single-most heavily subsidized state in the country per capita (far away, small population, huge distances between cities and rough winters requiring massive infrastructure), all of which allow them to set their state taxes incredibly low. But how does Alaska feel about "big government"? They fucking hate it. It's oppressive. They want smaller government, and so they always vote Republican, the "small government party". Why? Values say small goverment is always good, even though statistics show that they benefit from big government subsidies more than anyone else, and that if those subsidies dried up, their tax rate would have to skyrocket in order to keep the state functional (which of course they would also attribute to big government).

People follow their values. And over here at least, self-interest (almost) always trumps any sense of responsibility for society at large. Government is bad, no one wants to pay taxes for anything (but they'll still take free stuff), and everyone should look after themselves or else. That's the prevailing mood here. Democrats campaign by promising voters free stuff for nothing, and Republicans campaign by promising less obligations at no sacrifice. They know what the voters want to hear.

David said...

@Mr. Anonymous Guy Again

****

"See, yeah, that was me before. I am really impressed that you were able to lay out a counterargument to all of my assertions, and I appreciate you having done so."
You're welcome.


"You are an eloquent and (for the internet) extremely respectful interlocutor."
Thank you very much! ...I think. *looks up that word*


Hmmm... *scratches chin*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutor


"But listen: I've read all the arguments you made before,"
And I've read all the arguments you've made before.

****

"I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind, sir."

Oh no, go right ahead.

Everything I've said are not things I've decided on easily or quickly. Half the reason I talk to people online about politics is to get my own beliefs examined and tested against the opposition. The only reason I'm saying the conservative things I'm saying is because I've never heard a deal breaking argument against them.

I am giving you--as I have many--the opportunity to prove me wrong. That's the other half of the reason I like to phrase arguments as questions.

****

"Here's why it doesn't work: The way to get economic growth is to increase the velocity of money through increasing aggregate demand"

Yes. The question is, who is going to make that happen, the government, or individuals?

****

"which means that you need to put the most money possible in the hands of as many people as possible."

Again, who is "you"? This is kind of the heart of the economic debate; should each person be responsible for them self, or should a government body be responsible for their welfare?

****

"Rich people are not useful for that purpose, because all they can do when they have a ton of money is invest it"

...and?

Here's a quick video discussing that very concern you expressed:
http://youtu.be/o8A7LYtHnsk

****

"and after awhile you start to see either a) diminishing returns, because nobody can buy the products made by the businesses in which they are investing,"

Uh... why would rich people spend and waste their own money?

Nobody can buy their products? Why? Because they're all coated in poop? Don't people generally LIKE having food, houses and iPads?

There's some serious gaps in your logic, here.

****

"or b) investment overseas, which is why Bain Capital keeps outsourcing jobs"

Trying to understand your perception of economics as best as I can, you seem to believe in the idea that wealth is a zero-sum game. Am I correct? You may not consciously think that, but it's what your statements about economics implies.

The idea that, if some guy keeps making more and more money, someone else must be making less and less. This implies a confidence in the idea that wealth cannot be expanded.

[continued...]

David said...

[...continued]

"Also, read yerself some economics. I recommend Matt Yglesias."

I recommend Thomas Sowell.

"Do you know what they'll tell you? The war on poverty *worked*."

And they'll tell you it didn't.

****

"Medicare and Medicaid significantly improved the health care of the poor and elderly. Social Security helps a LOT of old people. Food stamps help a lot of poor kids."

Of course, when billions of dollars are spent on something, you're going to get a lot of that thing. But you've got to keep in mind that, when you're dealing with tax money, that that money came from somewhere, and it's money that could have been used for the same purpose.

For example, let's say the government spends $200,000 in taxpayer money to make 10 tons of cheese. Well, therefore, government spending produced cheese. You can confidently and factually say this. But what if, had that money been left in the hands of private individuals, they spend the exact same amount of their own money and make exactly the same amount of cheese?

See, even though the govt did something with other peoples' money, doesn't mean it's a good idea to give them more money. And it's not as though the above example was unrealistic. It's clearly documented and on display right now that people work much more efficiently and productively when their money is on the line. If you have a huge stash of other peoples' money to spend, you won't worry too much about doing a good job.

****

"And unemployment benefits...I mean all of them, not just the ones for veterans Republicans tried to cut, or the job placement for veterans Republicans blocked in the house, but literally *all* unemployment benefits for everyone (which Republicans also tried to stop)keep people from losing their shit and are helping people"

Link to all that, please.

****

"When was the last time you saw a breadline?"
Did you know of the breadlines they had in Communist Russia? Do you know of the Soviet Leader who went to America in the late 80's and wept at the sight of a grocery store?

That was a country where everything was government controlled 'for the good of the people'.

****

"...Climate Change, because I also have looked at the science on sentience so I can tell whether or not abortion is murder (spoiler: it is not murder)."

Oh really? You've done research on these subjects? Fantastic. Now, for the first time, I can have someone explain to me when and how the right to life begins, correct? And I can have a concise, solid case for how, why and if the world is changing temperature, right?

I'm not asking rhetorically this time. I actually have not heard a decent case for these two things yet, so please, tell me.

****

"...and contraception - sorry, but Rick Santorum said it and Romney supported the Blunt amendment, so that's their position) is that they don't like it when women have sex that they didn't give permission for."

Pretty tall claims. Back that up.

[continued...]

David said...

[...continued]

"Take just the gay marriage debate: if you oppose even the weakest version of the pro-Gay Marriage argument,"

I do not.

"...which is that being allowed to get married would make gay people feel better..."

I did not say that I didn't.

"There are better arguments, but they're not necessary, because gay people getting married does not disrupt your life, it just makes somebody else's better, and opposition to that is..."

Opposition that I have not expressed.

****

I think, maybe one time I was actually able to have a conversation about same sex marriage without someone thinking that I was staunchly against it. Even though, every single time, I make it perfectly clear that it is an issue that I am not decided on. Yet, you walk away from it thinking otherwise.

I JUST want to talk about the idea of marriage as a civil right and what other kinds of effects gay marriage would have on society. To paraphrase what Bob said about Microsoft Kinect; that's not hate: that's skepticism.

I'm going to be on the fence about marriage forever if people aren't willing to deal with someone challenging the idea and just talk about it, instead of just saying that I suck and hate gay people.

Thanks again for reading.

Nixou said...

""Common sense" in the US is that people should look after themselves. If they don't, or can't, it's not the responsibility of the rest of society to look after them."

Of course, for all their claims of being "rugged individualists conquering the frontier", Americans have relied on the federal government since at least the introduction of railways.

So while we get a lot of people pontifying about how the american public being against "collectivism" while polls after polls after polls show that in fact the American public is for the most part divided between a majority of closeted social-democrats who love every forms of policy defended by european left-wing parties but don't dare say it openly, and aminority of closeted jerks who want to enjoy the very same socialist policies but with the caveat of limiting these to their own little subgroup who try justify themselves with stuff like the "don't give food stamps to Welfare Queens" meme.

***

"Even though, every single time, I make it perfectly clear that it is an issue that I am not decided on"

Translation: "I have nothing against gay marriage but I don't have the balls to make a stand against the bigots"
Well, after all, this spineless position was the official position of the democratic party until last may.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

@Anonymous

Well.. if you truly do want things to chance and make a difference.. would it really be realistic to vote like that? would it make any difference at all?

And.. if Obama turned out not to be the next messiah, what are the chances any of these people will? what makes them so special and make you so sure having them in office will instantly make things better?
politics doesn't work instantly, changing things is an agonizing hard slow moving process.

People seriously, the people waiting for a president just to instantly fix things aren't waiting for a good president, they are waiting for the next messiah.


I think bob phrased it wrong, but I kind of sort of got one of his points that you aren't voting for "One cool guy."

.. You are voting for the direction your country should take the next four years and beyond that, not the guy, the direction. And right now you honestly only have two directions to pick from that would make a difference, your politics are designed that way, and yes it sucks, but clearly you need to lay out a compromising tac-tic to shift things at all. All politics works like that.


@Andrew

Even so, it'll still be cheaper for you as a collected country to pay that damn first doctor bill and let him work for the remainder of his natural working life instead of kick him out on the street where your state money will go to shelters and its like.

To top it off, having a hundred petes walking around down-town can't possible be a pretty sight for visitors now can it?


I feel for you, I truly do, that third link of the insuerance companies are ass. I mean honestly, instead of you just going to the hospital you have to go to them, whom will consider whether it's worth going to the hospital for you (without being doctors themselves mind you.) and then at last goes to the hospital for you, and first then comes back to you.. to many steps! and in the mean-time you may have just gotten more ill so the medical bill will be more exspensive than the first time around.
Do I need to say I am slightly disgusted?

Call me a hippie, it's only fair.. but man oh man. That fear of not having enough. It sickens me.
Politics currently are merely run on the fear of "Not having enough." poeple act and vote out of the fear of "Not having enough."

Not enough what dudes? money? When do you ever have enough??? Seriously?

And what the hell is the point of saving money if you don't even intend to spend on say maybe perhaps.. safe your country and fellow man?

For a country relying so heavily on the church and christianity in particularly you sure are good at skipping the part that says.

"Always help your next as you would help your brother, treat your enemy as you would treat your best friend, help does in need and don't get consumed by greed."

Nope, screw people around me, let them rot in the street.

What's that you say.. Child abortion should be illegal because the baby has a soul?

Okay, okay.. fine. But then also be prepaired to pay for that child and make sure it has a good life as it grows up society! you are half-assing your demandments here and pushing away all the responsibilities.

Sorry am getting so annoyed, but dammit I am glad I life here in Denmark where my "hippie." belives is some-thing actually be considered ones in a while.

But man, if you pick Romney, long term my country will be dragged down with you, we are a global world that way.. so please.. god oh god, pick right.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

Oh yeah, the big golden trick about our tax's.


Even if you don't know it, you are paying the same amount in "Tax's" as we do, the tax's we pay to goverment is money you end up paying any-way!

Money you pay to hospital, your childs colleague, a wheel chair for granny.

The deal here in my country is you'll pay the tax's and get all of that stuff for free.

So on a longer term? whom paying most money here? whom is loosing most money as individual persons?

here's a hint, it's not me.

And it also sickens me that people claim permanent damages to be peoples own fault, as if it was some-bodies concious decision to fall down and break a hip or some-thing.
"To bad, your own responsibility."

Shit happens, so we as human being so be able to take care about the more unfortunate people. Will some people miss-use this good-heartness?

yes.. yes some will. But that is a small price to pay for those in actual need to get back on their feed so they can life a prober life again and suprise, continue to give to society and a healthy working life.

When will people realise we have enough!

There's enough to go around, food, resources, hospitals, we are not going to run out of these things, that's ridicoules. We just need to find a better system to delegate these things in.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxEpa_4hMlQ&feature=player_embedded

David said...

"Translation: 'I have nothing against gay marriage but I don't have the balls to make a stand against the bigots'"

I don't think people on the traditional-marriage side are automatically a bunch of bad people for it.

If you refuse to even let your gay marriage position be questioned, just because I won't call your opposition intolerant bastards of hate... well who's really the intolerant ones here?

Maybe someday, decades from now, I'll actually get someone to mothershitting TALK about the issue of marriage as a right, instead of pulling out some combination of a red herring or ad hominem.

"Americans have relied on the federal government since at least the introduction of railways"

Ah yes, out of all the fallacies and strawmen arguments, this is the one I hear the absolute most frequently:

"Don't you want roads and bridges and police officers?"

Yes: conservative =/= against all government! Roads and tracks for public transport is one of the legitimate functions of government. I should probably get it tattooed onto my face because I have to explain that every. Single. Time.

David said...

"There's enough to go around, food, resources, hospitals, we are not going to run out of these things, that's ridicoules. We just need to find a better system to delegate these things in."

Private charity works pretty well.

Yeah all that time you could be spending campaigning for a politician who'll give X amount of tax dollars to the needy? Wouldn't it be much nicer to spend that time encouraging individuals to give X amount of their own dollars to the same?

You'll be surprised how much a prosperous society will give.

Bill Gates put like, what, tens of billions of dollars towards vaccinations? People as rich as he pay lots of taxes. Imagine, had he been taxed much less, how many billions more dollars he'd have been able to donate? How many more thousands of kids would have been helped by that?

Remember, every single dollar that the government spends is a dollar that would have been spent somewhere else if it hadn't been taxed to them. There are cases in which this reduction of wealth is for the best (roads! Yes! Now you can't say it), but probably not so much in the case of healthcare.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

@David

Erh.. every dollar the goverment gets is money the goverment uses on lets see.

Sciense, rail-roads, public libaries, home-less shelters, military and so on.

If the goverment doesn't have money to these things, they wont be fixed, whom knew, and with private investers deciding what the money goes to, only the visible things will be fixed and an imbalance happens.

In my country we don't need private invensters to have such basic needs as our own people not going hungry and have roof over their heads covered.
And people still get to be very rich do they have the right sort of job, that isn't any problem at all.

Bill Gates is a very nice man giving a billion dollar to home-less shelters, gee, that's very nice of him.
But just doing that ones well, maybe some-body builds that centre and that's very nice, but whom is going to sustain the thing after sheltre is build and the money is spend?
If it was goverment based the goverment would have made a sort of plan and would have kept on sustaining the place in a steady flow using Bill gates tax money.

And you know what, Bill Gates still get to be super rich and still get to have way more money than he will ever know what the hell to do with.

And it doesn't change the fact there are also many rich people whom holds unto their gold as was it their little baby, goes to paris one weekend to shop clothing for their vegas party, have not a "Walk i closet." but a "Walk in basement." all-ready filled with that clothes, girls on sixteen that grew up in this enviroment kicking and screaming because the sports car they got at their sweet sixteen isn't fancy enough, and still these girls wont have to work one single day all of their life, and no, they probably wont be nice enough to spontanously give a million to the home-less centre.

Is that fair?

And now, a million they take in tax dollars is not necesarily a million that will be spend some-where else, it might be a million just hanging around on a bank-conti or... it might be that million our sixteen year old spend not in the US, but in French on that trip.

Also, how selfish are you to exspect that one singel guy, Bill Gates, should pay for having all these problem fixed? the man probably has not to look at. Why can't every-body help paying the things that needs fixing? through, I don't know, tax money?
That way every-body whom can is helping to get you a better country in the end.

Cyrus said...

The Gates Foundation lost all credibility in my eyes, when stories of schools surfaced, that had been coerced into choosing Microsoft products as a requirement for receiving funds. Fucking pricks.

@David: Consider this: A lot of gay couples might be peeved about their inequality on principle alone and I would agree that no goverment should force a church to wed anyone they don't want to.

But marriage has become a very secular institution and many benefits for couples are not a right, they are a priviledge derived from the service they provide to society: Raising kids. Gay couples may lack the ability to *have* kids by the most traditional means, but they are certainly equiped to *raise* them. This whole discussion could proably be sidestepped by turning many couple-related benefits into parent-related ones - although its still everyone's own business, whom they deem family enough for visitation rights, power of attorney, their inheritance, etc.

@MovieBob: Your site needs a forum. ;)

Nixou said...

"So on a longer term? whom paying most money here? whom is loosing most money as individual persons? "

Heh: I can even provide a detailed answer
Yep, turns out socialized medicine cost waaaaaay less than the pre-ACA healthcare.

***

"I don't think people on the traditional-marriage side are automatically a bunch of bad people for it."

Gay Marriage does not hurt traditional marriage one bit.
The only sort of marriage "hurt" by it are the loveless marriages gays seeking respectability have been forced to endure for centuries.
People honestly on the traditional-marriage side have no reason to oppose gay marriage.
You know it, I know it, the bigots know it, and the only reason they're targetting Gays through petty attempts to forbid them to marry is because they cannot openly beat/rape/murder them and get away with it.

And I don't have to pretend in the name of fake politeness to be blind about it.

Opposition of gay marriage is about sadistic bigots who get off by harming Gays, and the sooner everyone stops pretending to give these perfidious thugs the benefit of the doubt, the sooner they will be reduced to a much deserved state of political irrelevance.

***

"Bill Gates put like, what, tens of billions of dollars towards vaccinations? People as rich as he pay lots of taxes. Imagine, had he been taxed much less, how many billions more dollars he'd have been able to donate?"

Had he been taxed "much less", there would not be any hospital to distribute your precious vaccines.
And by the way, what kind of vaccines are we talking about?
Oh, yeah, Polio, you know, one of these viral diseases which were eradicated in the Western Hemisphere thanks to public campains of vaccination (the first polio-free country being then-communist Czechoslovakia).
What a shame really, had the industrialized world decided to relly solely on private charity, polio would still be a cripling problem today in the US and Europe, and we could aaaaaaall be much more grateful toward the generosity of His Excellency Lord Bill of the Glitchy Window.

Anonymous said...

@Nixou Well, since you are so sure of cost, what about length of time to get needed care? What about quality of care? Or access restrictions?

Also of note, do you think ACA might just be different enough to make your whole argument moot?

----

Do you put everyone who isn't screaming "gay right now" in this category? Cause you just might be cutting a few who are thinking about it and trying to find a way to reach the correct goal (which gay marriage is) while looking ahead to prevent issues society being stupid WILL cause. I know this is my camp on the issue. For it, but willing to let it take a little while to see things done right with a little bit of idiot-proofing.

------------

This whole argument about more or less taxes depends I suspect heavily on how much the politicians want to take home in direct pay or personal benefits. Honestly, cut that and you would be shocked how much probably frees up.

Nixou said...

"Well, since you are so sure of cost, what about length of time to get needed care? What about quality of care? Or access restrictions?"

Well, since I as well as my parents have lived in both France and the US, I can tell by experience what the difference is:

when it comes to the overall quality of care, waiting lines and restrictions, France crush the USA in every category. The only "advantage" the US has is that if you're rich enough to afford the best premiums, you're allowed to cut the line, access private hospitals closed to the vulgum pecus and pretend that the system is faster and more efficient than it really is while in France you may have to spend 30-40 minutes in the waiting room with plebeans before seeing your pneumologist.

"Rodimus" Ben Lundy said...

Are you SERIOUS, MovieBob? I'm glad you usually only talk about pop culture, because I had no idea you were this ignorant.

Cyrus said...

@Nixou/last anon: Not to mention getting an important operation without being billed for a cent or having your premiums go up. That's quality of life right there, not just having access to care but also never having to worry about being bankrupted by it.

Constitutions of Western countries vary regarding their core tennants, but human dignity tends to come up in several. Not making a person beg for the preservation of their health is simply an extension of that principle.

Anonymous said...

hey Bob was your video in response to this article?

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

Jake said...

about Bob getting bullied and people saying he should get over it: I don't want to be insensitive about this, but a 30-year-old man still haunted by the fact that he was bullied is not normal. He really needs to go to therapy, (I'm serious about this, I'm not trying to be mean at all.)

Anonymous said...

@Jake: I agree that Bob needs therapy, not just for the reasons you mentioned. He seems to have narcissistic personality disorder, and may be a borderline sociopath.

Nixou said...

"a 30-year-old man still haunted by the fact that he was bullied is not normal"

Yeah, because Manly Men don't talk about it. Manly Men keep it to themselves and deal with the trauma by beating their girldfriend, or their wife, or their kids, or they reach a position of middle-managment and use it to tyrannize people under them, or they turn into internet stalkers, or start posting porn laced with mysoginistic insults on reddit. That's what Manly Men do, which is much more reasonnable and sane than, I don't know, being frank and open about one's bad childhood memories.

David said...

@The gay marriage issue
Please present to me actual evidence of that.

@The government spending issue
Shitting on Bill Gates doesn't help your case.

Anyway, onto the real issue:

Bob Chipman's emotional problems. (Skip to 'the point' if you want to save time)

As a follower of Bob's videos for almost three years now, I can say with some confidence that--at the very least--his political speech is motivated primarily by emotions; not logic or anything else.

Sometimes, he's passive and quiet about it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5654-One-Day-in-November
...and you wouldn't even be able to tell what side he's on. And then there's videos like THIS.

And then sometimes, there's blog posts like this:
http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2011/08/six-more-opinions-likely-to-be.html

Not only does he claim people with faith in a God are mentally deficient, he attaches that label to... pretty much anybody he doesn't like.

Like Transformers 3? You're functionally retarded and cannot operate a vehicle.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/3634-Transformers-Dark-of-the-Moon

Or, perhaps, are an undecided voter? Same thing. What's funny is I actually totally AGREE with the first part of that video. I believe most people who are 'undecided' are really just ignorant of politics and don't want to admit it.

However I think that's just because, well, everyone knows politics are important and no one wants to be seen as uninformed. Yet, getting into politics can be hard: there's so much you have to learn about, AND more importantly, you'll have people calling you all sorts of names and likening you to a Nazi for daring to QUESTION their platform.

That's why people dress up as 'undecided voters' (and maybe some do it to make themselves look nuanced and intelligent; that's reason number two.) I don't, however, feel the need to call everybody like that functionally retarded and hit them with petty insults.

The point
YES. Bob almost certainly has serious emotional problems. Again, from watching his videos, I have collected an assortment of clues.

1: He went to a Catholic school from K to 12
2: He was bullied
2.1: He has said that his bullying STILL affects him emotionally
3: He visibly despises Christianity

It's not hard to guess what happened here.


"That's what Manly Men do, which is much more reasonnable and sane than, I don't know, being frank and open about one's bad childhood memories"
You and I both know there's a big difference between 'sharing your problems' and 'being an asshole to people about your problems'.

Bob would do good, in fact, to follow his own guidelines on polite behavior:
http://youtu.be/2fXqydQOz2o

I, like many other people, DO ACTUALLY CARE about Bob and I think many of us really WOULD like him to get better. I love his commentary on culture, his voice is awesome and funny, and nobody likes to see someone this bitter.

Cyrus said...

You know, the points you are trying to make are not getting any better by attesting someone you happen to disagree with deep emotional problems, effectively questioning their sanity. I you like Bob as much as you profess, sifting through his videos for clues about his emotional development is a pretty poor way of showing it.

By the way, one doesen't have to be emotionally troubled to hold a grudge against the religious types who just won't keep their superstitions to themselves.

Nixou said...

"Please present to me actual evidence of that."

Evidence of what?
Evidence that gay-bashers are bullies who revel in the pain of others, who are barely kept in check by laws that forbid them to openly indulge their bloodlust, who, when they have the mean to, try to turn the world into a playground for there most disgusting, vile, murderous impulses?

The evidences are there, available to every member of the public willing to look, and more importantly, willing to aknowledge the reality they show.

***

"Shitting on Bill Gates doesn't help your case."

I don't shit on Bill Gates, unless the issue is Microsoft abusive business practices. Of course, I'm on the side with the bigger stick, so in recent years, I've toned down my indignation

But there's another thing I ommited last time: people who -like Bill Gates- give a lot of their money to charity because they want to leave a better legacy than "abused his monopolitistic position all his life", are a minority among the richest. For the most part, they give to charities only a fraction of what the state give them through tax cuts; don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they want to be seen as "generous" by their peers or the population at large, use it (more often than not) as a trick to dodge taxes they own, and many charities are not so charitable to begin with.

And when one rich guy decides to do something genuinly generous, there's always the risk of seeing his peers freaking out if it turns out that the charitable project is more than feel-good pretense.

So, when taxing rich people more, the money "lost" from rich generous donors is more than balanced by the money "won" by forcing greedy, egoistical and avaricious rich people to pay their dues.

Nixou said...

"Not only does he claim people with faith in a God are mentally deficient"

He was not talking about religious believers, he was talking about a subset of religious believers, namely creationists. Now, had he pretended that every religious believer was a creationist there would be a point to be made about Bob despising Christianity, but since his attack was leveled only at this very contemptible subgroup...
So your point three: does'nt exist: entirelly fictional, a fine exemple of simulated outrage.

But you're kinda right: Bob is wrong to call creationists "retards": Creationists are bald-faced liars, who cry crocodile tears when someone refuses to play along and pretend that they are fine, honest people who sincerely believe the bullshit they peddle.

They're not only liars, by the way: they're also political poltroons: not only don't they have the guts to admit that their in it to wrestle the control of schools from people who smarter, more erudite, and more honest that they will ever be and turn the next generation into obedient little lackeys of the self-proclaimed beholders of the "moral authority", but they keep rebranding their own lie: from creationism, to intelligent design, to "teaching the controversy".., better try to reword the same crap again and again and again than staying consistent: that would be like, a fraction of an angstrom closer to displaying some actual fortitude.

And quite frankly: that's your problem with Bob? He expressed contempt at charlatans and con-artists and chauvinists, and you're declaring that this is a psychological problem!? What's next? Playing the persecution card when someone will tell you that he finds child molesters who became priests to have easy access to kids disgusting?

The term used ("mentally-deficient") may have been wrong, but the contempt expressed entirely deserved, and as counter-intuitive as it might seem, much more respectful that the kind of fake-commiseration ("I despise you but I'm going to pretend that I care for you") that so many people use as an erzatz for civility nowadays.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Bob is actually going to have the courage to answer these criticisms.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a great rhetorical tactic, when somebody accuses some group of acting like bullies, to say "You must be so traumatized by bullying that you can't think rationally". That way you can blame the victim and act like you care.

But really, the Christian Right is a group of bullies. May they all get hangnails.

David said...

@It's not a rational tactic to question Bob's intellectual honesty by way of speculating on dampened emotions

I certainly don't suspect emotion problems on everyone I disagree with, in fact Bob is the only one I ever have.

And I haven't really deliberately looked for 'clues' (even though I DID call them that), I've just followed his videos for some time now and have been consistently surprised at how much Bob changes his tone and demeanor towards this vague, blurry, generalized vision of what he thinks makes up 'Christians' or 'conservatives'.

Like for example, in the TGO episode "Supreme Responsibility", when referring to a MASS MURDERER, he described him as 'your basic far right militant douchebag'. Now, if Bob actually, honestly thinks that a murderer is a 'basic' right-winger, then he wouldn't have any reason to be as passive as he is in videos like the ones I've linked before.

Also, I don't think Bob is ignorant enough to believe that, either. I do think he's smart enough to know people who are ignorant of politics, as well as people who like Transformers 3 are not functionally retarded.

But if not for a desire to accurately describe people he doesn't like, why WOULD Bob be saying the nasty things he does? The only explanation I can think of is: he's just being a bitter asshole when he makes 'those comments'. From that, I extrapolate: he has an emotional inclination to be an asshole to people with 'those comments'. Makes sense enough, right?

But here's the big thing about 'those comments'. Those comments are--as far as I can recollect--just about the only things that come out of his mouth when talking about politics. When reviewing a movie, for instance, he'll give his opinion, but only ever alongside 4 and a half minutes of telling you why he has that opinion.

With, say, conservatives/Christians/the GOP (all mushed into one, grey blob), he doesn't ever get very specific. "They're racist, they're hateful, they're sexist". That's it. He vaguely throws vague attacks at a vague generalization of an ideology.

For perspective, here's a video that just came out that's very similar to Bob's video posted above but on the opposite end of the political spectrum. The main difference being that, instead of attacking the entire liberal/DNC platform, it focuses solely on Obama himself and a few other high-level Democrats. It focuses solely on actual things he actually did, rather than just reasons he sucks 'just because.
http://youtu.be/wPjBXufufUU

I've never heard Bob really go in-depth with his politics. I've never heard him sit down and talk about the issues; I've mostly (mostly) just heard an endless slew of accusations and claims, without even trying to back them up.

And I'm not saying that Bob HAS to do anything but levy his bitter, angry attacks 80% of the time, but the point still stands that when he's talking about politics, 80% of the time it's just bitter insults.

Therefore, I conclude that his politics are mostly (80%?) motivated by emotions, and not by logic or reason.

[continued...]

David said...

[...continued]

@He was not talking about religious believers, he was talking about a subset of religious believers, namely creationists. Now, had he pretended that every religious believer was a creationist there would be a point to be made about Bob despising Christianity, but since his attack was leveled only at this very contemptible subgroup...

Now, I really, really don't want to misunderstand you here, but this paragraph makes it sound like you don't know Christianity is a creationist theology.

So just in case you don't know, the whole point of Christianity is that there is an all powerful, loving God who made everything in existence and submitting yourself to him is the way to heaven. This is textbook creationism, and Bob, having been raised in Catholic school, PROOOOBABLY knows that as well.

So I don't see what your point is.

****

@But there's another thing I ommited last time: people who -like Bill Gates- give a lot of their money to charity because they want to leave a better legacy than "abused his monopolitistic position all his life", are a minority among the richest. For the most part, they give to charities only a fraction of what the state give them through tax cuts; don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they want to be seen as "generous" by their peers or the population at large, use it (more often than not) as a trick to dodge taxes they own, and many charities are not so charitable to begin with.

I get a sense from this that you don't trust rich people very much. =P

Yet you do, however, trust the government to handle the same amount of money just fine. =P =P =P

Cyrus said...

So what you are saying is, that in order to follow their faith properly, Chistians are obligated to limit and/or disrupt scientific discovery?

Anonymous said...

Man, it's totally awesome how long is this is going on for.

Dave, you are omitting some fairly obvious possibilities in your "proof" that Bob is irrational.

Here's what I think is happening: lots of people agree with Bob that the Christian Right - not all Christians, just the Right-wing political ones, are bullies who promote discrimination, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance. Also, a lot of people agree with him that Transformers 3 and, by extension, just about everything Michael Bay is responsible for is utter crap and that people who like his stuff are making the movies worse for everyone by allowing him to keep doing it. I'm not saying everyone agrees, but I do, and so do lots of other people.

I think when Bob throws out assertions without backing them up he's talking to me. I don't need to be convinced, I just like listening to him spike the football. Of course the Bay fans aren't "functionally retarded". He's just calling them stupid, because they seem stupid to him. They also seem stupid to me. I am amused by his mockery of them, even if it seems irrational and unfair.

So in that sense, you're right: Bob's big smackdown comments are emotional, designed to get an emotional response from people who agree with him and to annoy people who don't.

But...that's not to say his opinions aren't based on reason. I don't think Conservative Christians are a menace because I just hate them arbitrarily. I don't like them for what I see as fairly logical reasons. Sometimes I want to explain them. Sometimes I just want to express my aggravation. I get Bob on this.

So let me say this: the "whole point" of Christianity is not that there's a loving God who made everything and blah blah. That's the way Christianity - and religion - sucker people. Those things are self-evidently not real. The point of Christianity is to use people's fear of death and need for meaning to acquire money and power.

That said, when people complain about "Creationists", they're complaining not about all Christians but about the ones who think some version of Creation Science should be taught in school instead of - or alongside - evolution. That's because the evidence for Evolution is pretty much ironclad, whereas the case that the world was created 6,000 years ago and man walked with Dinosaurs is down to wishful thinking. But of course, the purpose of opposing the teaching of Evolution has nothing to do with educating people and everything to do with making kids less informed so that they'll be more easily suckered into believing the various silly things you need to believe to be a Christian.

As for rich people vs. the government...the government is controlled, to some extent, by my votes, my activism, and my opinions. Rich people can do whatever they want. I like it when I have control of huge sums of money, thus I trust the government more than rich people. Moreover, I trust that an institution designed to represent the collective self-interest of Americans will do that, and a group (like a corporation) designed to enrich a few major shareholders will do that. Since I don't care about the shareholders and I do care about the American people...see? It's not hard.

Anonymous said...

Wow. We are still posting comments on this?

Nixou said...

"Like for example, in the TGO episode "Supreme Responsibility", when referring to a MASS MURDERER, he described him as 'your basic far right militant douchebag'. Now, if Bob actually, honestly thinks that a murderer is a 'basic' right-winger"

David, let me tell you the rule number one of the bullshiter:
If you want to peddle bullshit, if you want to tell obvious lies to people, the first step is to make sure that your interlocuter believes that you believe your own bullshit.

I'm going to take an exemple I know well
France counts a little less than 17 million right-wing voters
The main conservative party has around 200.000 members
The far-right counts around 50-60.000 militants
Basic right wingers: 17.000.000
far-right douchebags: 60.000
Or, if you want a picture:
Basic right wingers= #
far-right militant douchebags = *
########################################
########################################
########################################
########################################
########################################
#####################
*##################
########################################
########################################
#####################

If you were really stupid enough to not understand the difference, you would be too cognitively limited to use a keyboard, and therefore not posting here.
The fact that you cannot be actually believing your own discourse makes you look like a snake oil salesman, thus, you're breaking the First Rule.

***

"But if not for a desire to accurately describe people he doesn't like, why WOULD Bob be saying the nasty things he does?"

Because fake politeness is a waste of time. And because most partisans tend to interpret anything that's not unapologetic display of hostility as signs of weakness and never try to back up their claim unless openly and violently challenged.

Nixou said...

"Now, I really, really don't want to misunderstand you here, but this paragraph makes it sound like you don't know Christianity is a creationist theology."

Christianity is not a theology
Christianity is a fuckton of sects whith a common origin, and they all have their own specific sets of theological interpretations and biblical exegesis, and not only christian sects often disagree whith each others but often sects harbor disagreement within their own ranks.

And not only that, but none of the mainstream christian denominations support creationism. At most they postulate that natural selection exists because God intented it, and even then, they make clear which side they're on. And beyond the hierachy, what is the opinion of actual biblical scholars? Well, they're not shy about describing creationists standard bearers as con-artists.

"Christianity is a creationist theology" is not merely a false postulate: it's a lie a sin, and also a perfect expression of creationism's moral bankruptcy. According to creationists, not only should Christians reject science, they should at the same time reject their traditional religious authorities and submit the diktats of self-proclaimed keepers of the heterodoxy who are often as illiterate in religion than they are in biology. It's not "reject your priest of your science teacher, you can't have both", it's "reject your priest and your science teacher and from now on defer only to me"

***

"the whole point of Christianity is that there is an all powerful, loving God who made everything in existence and submitting yourself to him is the way to heaven."

Only the fundies pretend that God is a control freak who micromanage every single physical reaction in the universe while at the same time demanding that self-aware living creatures spend their time as submissive sycophants.

***

I get a sense from this that you don't trust rich people very much. =P

Full disclosure: I'm part of the dreaded 1%
So when I talk about the many vices and few virtues of the very rich: I talk as an insider: I know my people, and I've learned by experience how untrustworthy most of "us" are.

Trilliandi said...

@Nixou('s last comments)

All of my love, you may have it now. <3

Jake said...

@Nixou
You sure do have a penchant for taking peoples comments out of proportion. I never said he should keep it bottled up and be a MANLY MAN. I said he should probably get therapy, which is by the way, THE OPPOSITE OF KEEPING IT BOTTLED UP!

Anonymous said...

Oh no! Nobody has posted on this thread today! I think it's finally dying!

Quick

Liberals are stealing all the money!

Conservatives eat babies!

Religious people are addicted to huffing paste!

If you disagree with anything I say you're horrible!

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6_Chr2vro XD

-Megabyte

Anonymous said...

Hey James.
GO FUCK YOURSELF! You lost this election and the Liberals won. So much for the whole lesser of two evils being too evil bullshit. Now shut up and count your gold.

Andrew said...

Congrats Dems. I hope the next four years of House obstructionism feels more tolerable than the last two. At least the Supreme Court isn't likely to get worse.

Amazing how everyone on television but Bill O'Reilly seems to think Romney ran a brilliant campaign. I don't like it when he agrees with me, especially when he follows legitimately reasonable remarks by implying that non-whites are ruining America by turning it into an entitlement society. Not that he's talking about race or anything.

P.S. Can we finally get some bi-partisan support for abolishing the Electoral College NOW?

Pension Release said...

Looking for our Early Pension Release plan, to get financial freedom-the cost of accessing or unlocking your pension early. Want more plans like early pension release, Get Pension Early, Pension Advice.