Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-19-2008, 07:58 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Pastors and Hookers Edition

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-19-2008, 08:54 PM
jaoneal jaoneal is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Bob seems even crankier than usual. I think he's way too close to Obamania to analyze the speech in anything like an objective way. He really seemed p*ssed at Mickey for criticizing the speech--not Bob's best.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-19-2008, 09:19 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I didn't view the entire diavlog due to technical problems. However, from what I saw Bob was cranky today.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-20-2008, 12:11 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaoneal View Post
Bob seems even crankier than usual. I think he's way too close to Obamania to analyze the speech in anything like an objective way. He really seemed p*ssed at Mickey for criticizing the speech--not Bob's best.
I see it as the opposite, Bob's illness allowed him to temper - as in set aside - his usual patience for Mickey's contradictory and as Bob points out, self-serving so-called contrarian take.
Mickey states: Only he, unlike all MSM elites thought the speech a disaster. And then Bob calls him disingenuous for claiming to despair for Obama's missed chance to win over certain white voters. Bob suggests that Mickey's Clinton support makes his claim hypocritical. Mickey twistedly replies that if only the speech had worked... Obama could win Pennsylvania decisively and save the Democratic party. Which Mickey so obviously loves. Right.
And Mickey also claims that everyone - and this must be a different everyone than those that loved the speech - is offended by the presumption of Obama speaking about white resentment, well at least at the "The Corner" (NRO) - he thinks (obviously, don't quote him), and also is taken aback by Bob's cranky pursuit of holding him accountable.

I still love the pairing but, Mickey is continually exasperating. You know, just like that crazy Uncle... I mean Grandmother that has racist sentiments, that you still love. Alright, maybe I will throw him under the bus. Not.

Last edited by graz; 03-20-2008 at 03:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-19-2008, 09:02 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I didn't analyze Obama's speech line for line like Mickey did. The material about welfare, affirmative action, his grandmother, and the history of slavery didn't interest me. I wanted to see how he handled Pastor Wright. Well, he didn't do himself any favors in that department. I guess we are suppose to understand why Wright is the way he is and why Obama keeps attending the church. From what I see Wright is a bigot and I'll never understand why Obama attends such an incendiary congregation.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-19-2008, 09:20 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Mickey is loony if he thinks that even 1% of voters are going to choose a candidate based on welfare.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-20-2008, 11:34 PM
Jeff Morgan Jeff Morgan is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 48
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

a few 30-second clips do not prove the congregation incendiary.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-19-2008, 09:17 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Why no dingalink

I supplied no digalink as I generally just download the wmv files and listen to them in the standalone player, because of the numerous technical glitches associated with the Flash Player versions. So while I am quite aware of how to construct them by hand it is not really worth the effort. In this particular Diavlog I don't think that anyone who listened to it could have actually missed it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-20-2008, 12:34 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Why no dingalink

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
I supplied no digalink as I generally just download the wmv files and listen to them in the standalone player, because of the numerous technical glitches associated with the Flash Player versions. So while I am quite aware of how to construct them by hand it is not really worth the effort. In this particular Diavlog I don't think that anyone who listened to it could have actually missed it.
Since Bob and Mickey singled you out for not Dingalinking, I offer a second complaint that reiterates that the flash-player sucks!, I have not been able to view an episodes for weeks, without downloading it as WMV or mp3. So, Until "they" fix the bug(s), they should lay off the fish.

Last edited by graz; 03-20-2008 at 12:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-20-2008, 07:20 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Piscivorous's missing dingalink

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
I supplied no digalink as I generally just download the wmv files and listen to them in the standalone player, because of the numerous technical glitches associated with the Flash Player versions. So while I am quite aware of how to construct them by hand it is not really worth the effort. In this particular Diavlog I don't think that anyone who listened to it could have actually missed it.
You're right about the video probs, although except for the chronic cut-offs right before the end of the diavlogs, I'm not seeing very many streaming problems lately.

More importantly, you're also right about Will's statement itself. In fact, I found it so jarring that I remembered about where he said it. So, here is your dingalink.

Text version: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9486?in=00:53:30&out=00:53:53

In the future, though, Pisc, it might be helpful to give an approximate timestamp; e.g., "I found Will's statement (at about 53 minutes in) offensive." It's always courteous to supply ready references, and it also strengthens your point.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-19-2008, 09:22 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I found this hooker exchange priceless:

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...4&out=00:33:25
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-19-2008, 10:07 PM
dankingbooks dankingbooks is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I thought Mickey'x comments on why Spitzer hired prostitutes were plausible. For a fun, fictional, unflattering look at how and why men become sex tourists, you might enjoy Naked in Haiti: A sexy morality tale about tourists, prostitutes & politicians.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-19-2008, 10:44 PM
Bob M Bob M is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 23
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9562?in=00:16:47

I agree Iraq and immigration are the biggest cleavages among Republican voters, but weren't Iraq, Social Security, and Katrina the biggest blunders for the voters on the median?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-20-2008, 12:45 AM
beve83 beve83 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I'm sorry, Mickey Kaus, but just because a young black man is following you does not mean you are going to get mugged!!!

geeeze!

My cousins, brothers, friends, classmates are "young black men" who occasionally walk home late at night, and I assure you they would not mug you, you have my word.. So I'm sorry its not a "duh" moment. It's a racist moment to AUTOMATICALLY equate being followed by a young black man is = dangerous. That is the textbook example of racism, being pre-judged by the color of your skin, and I'm surprised that even white liberals who I'm sure took ethnic studies, and perhaps the odd Af-Am / Chincano Studies course, would even suggest such a thing.

This "great race debate" is over before it even began with such fundamental disagreements.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-20-2008, 01:00 AM
beve83 beve83 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

http://www.brainwaveweb.com/diavlogs/9562?in=00:04:02

Oh and I forgot to add, that this is why Black people (i.e. Wright) are mad: because statements like Kaus' continue to equate us with criminal behavior.

Dang, can't I just walk home at night without you thinking I might rob you???? You don't even know where I'm coming from. Most of the young black men I know would actually HELP YOU if you got robbed.

I'm sorry if my year round tan = run for cover, that's how I came out the womb. Nothing I can do about it other than apply skin bleach and that didn't work out to well for Michael Jackson.

Ok I'm done.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-20-2008, 01:02 AM
beve83 beve83 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

http://www.brainwaveweb.com/diavlogs/9562?in=00:04:37

Robert = correct
Kaus = woefully wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-20-2008, 01:12 AM
beve83 beve83 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Ok, I'm back.

I just can't stay away from this. First, upon further viewing, I must commend Robert Wright for saying what I was angrily (yes angrily) saying at my laptop. Its so annoying and sometimes, hurtful to hear statements along the lines of "yes Obama did a great speech on racial divisions, but too bad he missed pandering to the holy grail of voters: white under-educated males" I guess it was......."a disaster"??? Really??

Its like, EVEN in a debate on race, it doesn't matter if Black people are being included or even are the subject----you gotta make sure the white guys understand and are not offended! Please! Don't alienate white working class men from the upper mid-west! Anything but that!

I guess, we're all equal, but some are much more equal than others.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-20-2008, 01:25 AM
beve83 beve83 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I like how Kaus keeps saying "actively alienate whites"

Let me ask you all something, have white people ever been alienated by the American government?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-20-2008, 01:32 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by beve83 View Post
I like how Kaus keeps saying "actively alienate whites"

Let me ask you all something, have white people ever been alienated by the American government?
It is irritating how The"mickey" poses as a spokesman for all the alienated whites. Chutzpah and conceit come to mind, but not to excuse or rationalize...thats Mickey. He blusters, overstates and sometimes offers speculation that is not fully supported by facts. Nice work if you can get it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-20-2008, 02:22 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

beve83:

All of your comments have been spot-on, and

Quote:
Its so annoying and sometimes, hurtful to hear statements along the lines of "yes Obama did a great speech on racial divisions, but too bad he missed pandering to the holy grail of voters: white under-educated males" I guess it was......."a disaster"??? Really??
that was especially well said.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:02 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by beve83 View Post
Oh and I forgot to add, that this is why Black people (i.e. Wright) are mad: because statements like Kaus' continue to equate us with criminal behavior.
when i first read this, i took "Wright" as bob, robert wright, and you have to admit, that's pretty funny, right?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:36 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by beve83 View Post
I'm sorry, Mickey Kaus, but just because a young black man is following you does not mean you are going to get mugged!!!

geeeze!

My cousins, brothers, friends, classmates are "young black men" who occasionally walk home late at night, and I assure you they would not mug you, you have my word.. So I'm sorry its not a "duh" moment. It's a racist moment to AUTOMATICALLY equate being followed by a young black man is = dangerous. That is the textbook example of racism, being pre-judged by the color of your skin, and I'm surprised that even white liberals who I'm sure took ethnic studies, and perhaps the odd Af-Am / Chincano Studies course, would even suggest such a thing.
i hear you beve83, and i'm with you. but i think part of the process is telling white people that in our society (which i think we all agree needs fixing), just because you've had the occasional "racist" thought, it doesn't make you a racist.

i don't know if that's what mickey is getting at, but i do think that's what barak obama is getting at.

i suspect the percentage of white americans who have been unintentionally afraid because an 18 year old black man passed them at midnight is high. the part of that white audience obama needs to reach is the (large?) fraction that then felt ashamed of themselves for being afraid.

one critique seems to be that obama alienated those people by accusing his grandmother of racism. but i think that's the lesson taken away by a white "victim" who's not going to vote for him no matter what. the potential obama voter heard him say that it's ok, because even his grandmother could slip up.

when obama pointed fingers, it was to non-persons like corporations and lobbyists and the culture or whathaveyou. i don't think it was at a single individual. that's key. no one can be made to feel personally and privately bad. that's always a mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-20-2008, 10:00 AM
Kausophile Kausophile is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9
Unhappy Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I was looking forward to this vlog -- and yes, I must watch in wmp, because Flash is fakachte-- but I made the mistake of reading these nasty and silly comments beforehand. Forget it, it's ruined. Today's comments wonderfully confirm Senator Obama's thesis about habitual divisions impeding intellectual progress, though. So, thanks a million.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-20-2008, 11:22 AM
Curtis Curtis is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

What I want to hear from people like Mickey Kaus and the other "critics" of Obama's preacher and Obama's association with a preacher that says harsh and some off the wall things is the same level of vehemence and focus on those crazy nutball right wing preachers that the Republican Party has embraced, that George Bush and John McCain have praised and embraced and whose support they have actively sought. The kind of things that these America hating preachers have said are no less inflammatory than anything Rev. Wright has said. The double standard here is flagrant and outrageous. Of course I'm not holding my breath for Mickey to develop some intellectual honesty and not just go on and on with his contrarian schtick.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-20-2008, 12:00 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Are there videos out there with McCain's Baptist minister making hateful and bigoted comments? If there are let me know. What made this particularly galling is that Obama had a close relationship with Wright. Oh, I heard that Oprah Winfrey chose to leave this congregation due to the incendiary pastor.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-20-2008, 11:31 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kausophile View Post
I was looking forward to this vlog -- and yes, I must watch in wmp, because Flash is fakachte-- but I made the mistake of reading these nasty and silly comments beforehand. Forget it, it's ruined. Today's comments wonderfully confirm Senator Obama's thesis about habitual divisions impeding intellectual progress, though. So, thanks a million.
Well maybe, but I didn't find the comments nasty or silly. In fact, they seem quite reflective of the current debate as to who and why to support for the POTUS.
Your name suggests some form of Mickey worship. Would you care to defend his performance or ideas in the speech critique portion of the diavlog? I challenge in the spirit of overcoming habitual divisions that might foster, not impede intellectual progress.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-20-2008, 11:49 AM
threep threep is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I second that. This was deathly, and I think the Bob and Mickey pairing should be scrapped. I am utterly serious, and I've been a fan probably longer than most people--back in that first fall when they were like 20 minutes long and they didn't know what they were doing. I think the fault is mostly Bob's in this particular instance, but the relationship has apparently soured to the point where it's untenable. Some people just shouldn't be talking to each other, and it definitely shouldn't be broadcast. There's a crucial ability to say "I may disagree with this person, and to the extent I do listening respectfully and calmly replying will only, from my perspective, give them more rope to hang themselves" that is missing both from Bob and from many/most commenters here when it comes to Mickey.

If the Bob/bjkeefe/wonderment axis thinks Mickey is no longer worthwhile in anyway, then amputation is necessary before the gangrene spreads. Let Mickey do diavlogs with someone else, and let the people who hate him not care.

I don't want to try to effect the high-road posture too much, so for the record: harshly criticizing Mickey for his John Edwards shenanigans is probably the most legitimate form of anti-Mickeyism. But the anger at his arguments here is largely disingenuous. All Mickey is doing, from what I can see, is making the argument that Obama's speech was probably a tactical disaster. What he is being blamed for, it seems, is not just the errors in his judgments on that subject, but for the fact that tactical maneuvering would matter, the fact that political commenters speak from their own perspective, the fact that Obama's speech was given in the context of a political campaign, the fact that human beings are sometimes subtly prejudiced, the fact that human beings are sometimes overtly prejudiced, the fact that right-wingers exist, the fact that political dualism exists which forces one side to find some reason--any reason--to hate the other side... etc. etc.

All I'm saying is that it seems to me that there's nothing in his actual points that merit this kind of anger and annoyance instead of simple disagreement, as people frequently disagree on any number of things (remember). It's not about what he was saying, it's about the emotional reaction to Mickey himself which then gets rationalized (psych 101, anyone?).

If you "go with it" on the subject of Mickey Kaus, there's a certain logic to it all... he's placed himself in a particular, weird position in the political spectrum/galaxy that I don't have the time or sleep to essay forth on. But Ann Coulter, immigration, Edwards scandal... it all starts to make sense. Many liberals, of course, view him (understandably) as a traitor and furthermore just see absolutely nothing in the position he occupies that is worthwhile or even tolerable.

I guess the overarching point is that there is a phenomenon of severe Mickey-aversion that exists independent of the various reasons that keep being given for it, and for some reason the reaction is to slap on the war paint and get angry rather than do the healthy thing--keep giving him rope or politely leave. It would be a shame to waste much more time or more importantly damage the civility of this environment because of this hang-up. Time to part ways, agree to disagree, or whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-20-2008, 12:12 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

threep: "Bob and Mickey should be scrapped"

You make a quite healthy and sensible suggestion, if drastic.
Sure many of the comments default to a low common denominator and veer from debate and exhibit alignment with either the pro or con Mickey camp. That is also the beauty of it. Mickey has an uncanny ability to stir up these deep seated, but not uninformed thoughts and feelings. He clearly puts himself in the position of asking us to ask him to defend his positions. Bob, particularly today, pointed out his contradictions and challenged his opinions that are projected by him as facts(imo). Upon review they seem no more than innuendo and in support of his fact-challenged blog and reigning "big issues" (immigration, welfare). He somehow manages to peddle himself as authoritative while offering empty analysis. You still might be right as in Bob Wright deserves a more serious minded challenger. I am not claiming that they are unequal - that would be politically incorrect. What they are apparently is friends.

Last edited by graz; 03-20-2008 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-20-2008, 02:53 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

threep:

Quote:
If the Bob/bjkeefe/wonderment axis thinks Mickey is no longer worthwhile in anyway, then amputation is necessary before the gangrene spreads. Let Mickey do diavlogs with someone else, and let the people who hate him not care.
I won't speak for the whole axis (we still have yet to settle on a secret handshake) but let me respond for my part in it. Well, I do want to say one thing, sort of on Bob's behalf: as far as I can tell, he does not think Mickey is not worthwhile. Does he get a little heated, a little frustrated, a little disparaging? Sure. None of us is perfect, and friends tend to be better at pushing each other's buttons than strangers.

Okay, now just from me.

First, your essay was well-argued and your emotion well-taken. I'm sorry if the level of venom in my comments put you off, but I stand by the belief that the specific criticisms I made were legitimate (though arguable, I grant). I regret that I'm not clever enough to say everything I wanted to say in the form of satire. Since I'm not, I had to say it straight. I don't think it was out of hand for me to let my tone go a little harsh, since Mickey spent his half of the half hour speaking in a tone that I found more offensive. You shoulda seen the first draft, is what I mean to say.

Second, I don't think Mickey is worthless. I enjoy the bulk of his conversations with Bob, and when he's not doing his best to submarine the latest Democrat in his crosshairs, I often find he has useful things to say. At the very least, his endless instinct to be contrary does make me think. I would not like to see the Bob and Mickey pairing dissolve.

Third, I do not view Mickey as a traitor. I would say that he seems to have become more conservative with age, based mostly on what Bob brings up from the past, but that's no big whoop. It's a common enough occurrence for people's political stances to change over time, in all directions. I have no problem with evolving beliefs. The thing that bothers me when he gets on a political jag is that he comes off as dishonest. He constantly insists he's a Democrat and has liberal cred, but he almost never says anything bad about Republicans or conservatives. Further, most everything he says about Democrats is an attack, and it's usually not at all credible criticism. Frequently, it's indistinguishable from garden variety concern trolling.

Compare, for example, Paul Krugman's jihad against Obama over health care a month or two ago. The man must have written a hundred blog posts and who knows how many columns, arguing that Obama's plan was inferior to Clinton's. Though I didn't like to hear one hero shredding another, I thought Krugman was being completely legit and sincere. Mickey, on the other hand, spends the same amount of time rehashing and repeating "issues" and "stories" that all too often seem based on nothing more than chatter in the wingnutosphere. I mean, come on. The National Enquirer? NewsMax? The Corner? It's beyond belief that he thinks what what those sources have to say merits repeating, so I am forced to conclude that he's got some other reason. Maybe he just wants to generate buzz, maybe he wants to be part of the Right Wing Noise Machine. It doesn't matter. It's dishonest. Basically, I wish he'd either stop acting like it hurts his feelings when Bob calls him on the inconsistency of his self-identification, or find more substantive issues to pick at.

Quote:
I guess the overarching point is that there is a phenomenon of severe Mickey-aversion that exists independent of the various reasons that keep being given for it, and for some reason the reaction is to slap on the war paint and get angry rather than do the healthy thing--keep giving him rope or politely leave. It would be a shame to waste much more time or more importantly damage the civility of this environment because of this hang-up. Time to part ways, agree to disagree, or whatever.
Sorry, I just don't agree with any of this. Sounds like you're mostly talking about/to Bob here, but for whatever piece is directed at me, here's my rebuttal.

As I said, I think my reaction to this particular diavlog was based on sound reasoning, and I think my tone was within the bounds.

As to why I don't just ignore him, I'll repeat myself again: I don't think he's of no use, so it's worth the gamble of time to watch him. As to why I put so much effort into reacting to him when he strikes a nerve: it's not just him. I'm tired of the sort of talk he, and so many other people like him, issue on certain matters, and I've decided that if they're going to repeat incessantly whatever they're on about this week, I'm going to be disputing it right back at them. As for Mickey personally, I do like a lot about him, and I give him extra respect for being one of the founding fathers of one of my favorite web sites. When I care as much in that sense, I just can't keep quiet when something upsets me.

Maybe there's a simpler solution: How about you skip the comment threads when Mickey's on? Wouldn't that pretty much solve everything?

I don't mean to be facetious, but it seems to me that the Bob and Mickey show always provokes the liveliest threads. Maybe this is Mickey's real plan -- to deliver bait that produced by people who really believe what they're spewing, so that we Kaus-agonistes get a chance to rouse ourselves from our slumbers. Maybe he's the drill sergeant for the lazy lefties. Or not. But whatever the case, I enjoy the high spirited threads that he provokes.

Sorry it's not to your taste.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-20-2008, 03:27 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Has anyone ever tracked the right-ward trend of Mickey's statements (repeating FOX talking points, attacking Dems based on Newsmax etc) in correlation to the birth of his "personal" relationship with Ann Coulter. I'm sure this isn't a completely original theory, but guys have been know to go to pretty great lengths to try and get laid.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-20-2008, 04:19 PM
threep threep is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

I'm tired and may have overreacted, and really my reaction was sparked by Bob's behavior rather than the thread, though they're similar. Generally I maintain that when people start acting as if the other person should just shut up, or should just not say that, or should just not be that way, baser emotional motivations haven taken over and it's only going to get messier and messier. I know it's not a universal sentiment at all, but I hold to the opinion that if you're angry in politics you're probably doing it wrong. Of course--of course--there are many people who feel the exact opposite.

My simplified explanation is just that there's a belief among a lot of people that "effort" in the political sphere correlates directly with effect. I think that's a fallacy, and the most important function for us in discourse is discriminatory, not forceful.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-21-2008, 12:27 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

threep:

Quote:
Generally I maintain that when people start acting as if the other person should just shut up, or should just not say that, or should just not be that way, baser emotional motivations haven taken over and it's only going to get messier and messier.
There's a lot that I agree with here. I would disagree at the margins, however. There is a point at which one person makes statements that are so outrageous that the listener is provoked. I think a sufficiently extreme statement does not deserve respectful debate and that a display of anger is not only merited but useful. To respond to everything in the same measured tones excuses the person who made the inflammatory statement, or, looking at it from the perspective of two friends talking, does the first speaker a disservice by not informing him how far off the rails he has gone.

Does yelling at every drop of a hat irritate me? Most definitely. I avoid talk radio and TV for that reason alone, and I find guys like Bill O'Reilly the bane of free speech. Quite apart from that, always yelling means that the effect is lost when someone yells for righteous reasons, and I do think those righteous reasons exist.

The line beyond which an angry and dismissive argument is appropriate is drawn in a different place by every single person, I readily acknowledge. I also grant that it has become ingrained in many of us to feel privileged to move the line at our convenience, when it would be better if we once in a while just took a deep breath. Personally, I admit no shortage of guilt in this regard. On the other hand, I have also decided, coolly and rationally, that it is sometimes necessary to act this way. More on this in response to your next bit.

Quote:
My simplified explanation is just that there's a belief among a lot of people that "effort" in the political sphere correlates directly with effect. I think that's a fallacy, and the most important function for us in discourse is discriminatory, not forceful.
I agree with you, but mostly in the ideal, and not in the reality that is the political landscape in today's America.

There are powerful forces pushing a vision for my country that I find abhorrent, and among their most successful tactics are false outrage, endless repetition, and volume. I've watched over the course of my life as reasoned rebuttal has become increasingly ineffective as a response, so for the past few years, I have been trying the approach of fighting fire with fire. I'd be more than happy to turn it down a few notches, but I am not going to do so unilaterally.

To take the Wright issue as an example, I would readily admit that there were legitimate concerns, at least at first glance. However, the saturation bombing of the airwaves, the media, and the blogosphere with context-free video clips and an utter lack of admission that there might be some worth to looking behind the first words heard is exactly the style used over and over by the people whose political goals I oppose. There was no success to be had in the initial response by Obama and his supporters -- polite explanations and requests for a deeper look were ignored, dismissed out of hand, or openly mocked.

With apologies to Sergeant/Tech-Com Reese, those wingnuts are out there. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, they don't feel pity or remorse, and they thrive on fomenting fear. And they absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until the country I once loved is dead.

You got a better idea how to combat the forces of intolerance, I'm all ears. Good manners, sadly, have proven insufficient.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-21-2008 at 12:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-20-2008, 03:26 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Quote:
If the Bob/bjkeefe/wonderment axis thinks Mickey is no longer worthwhile in anyway, then amputation is necessary before the gangrene spreads. Let Mickey do diavlogs with someone else, and let the people who hate him not care.
I think Bob should reject and denounce Mickey. He might throw in excommunicate and expel as well.

And he owes us some answers: Was Bob present at the MinuteKlan rally when Mickey exhorted the mob: "Some people say ain't nothin' wrong with mariachis and mole poblano. But I say God Damn the illegal little fuckers!"

Did Bob fail to disown Mickey when he made up a story about John Edwards shtupping an airhead film maker while his wife was dying of inoperable cancer?

Did Bob cringe sufficiently the day Mickey told him to cross the street to avoid "black gangbangers" who turned out to be Bill Cosby and Al Roker?

When Mickey accompanied Lou Farrahkan Dobbs, on a trip to Spain to visit Franco's tomb and praise the dictator's policies on Basque illegals, did Bob sufficiently vilify Dobbs as a traitor and racist?
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y s璲uela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-20-2008, 11:50 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Kausophile:

Sorry if we "ruined" things for you, but man, talk about playing the victim card. Who chose to read the comments first? You. Who let what other people had to say act as an obstacle to viewing the primary source and making a decision for one's self? You.

Maturity may be defined as accepting the consequences of your own decisions.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-19-2008, 11:09 PM
Bob M Bob M is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 23
Default Re: Pastors and Hookers Edition

Maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but what is the cost-benefit for Obama of this free publicity that he is a worshipping Christian versus the association with the seemingly extreme views of his pastor?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-19-2008, 11:21 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: The point

I'm glad that Bob brought up a point that has been unremarked upon in the MSM. The whole message and point of Obama's speech was to explain to white America that the sentiment that was shown in the Jeremiah Wright videos happens all the time in black churches and within the black community and is really not something to be alarmed about. And then he (Obama) went on to explain why many black Americans feel that way, and tried to show a parallel in the white community. I really don't see how the speech was in any way offensive. I don't understand Mickey's reaction at all. From a political perspective maybe, but I found it to be an incredibly well-written speech that was honest and pulled no punches in a very complex subject. Mickey thinks that everyone is as upset about welfare as he is, and everyone hates unions, and everyone is scared of a Mexican takeover. Unfortunately, his thumb is noticeably removed from the pulse of most Americans. Those are issues for SOME, but not on such an obsessive level as he sees them.

Looking forward to hearing Louwry/McWhorter discuss the speech.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-19-2008, 11:41 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: The point

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
... The whole message and point of Obama's speech was to explain to white America that the sentiment that was shown in the Jeremiah Wright videos happens all the time in black churches and within the black community and is really not something to be alarmed about. ...
So Senator Obama's jobs was to tell white Americans that Blacks promoting bigotry and hatred in the church pews is quite acceptable and then convince us that we shouldn't be alarmed by this or the effect that it has on the next generation of Blacks.

Yea makes sense to me!

Last edited by piscivorous; 03-19-2008 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-20-2008, 02:28 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The point

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
So Senator Obama's jobs was to tell white Americans that Blacks promoting bigotry and hatred in the church pews is quite acceptable and then convince us that we shouldn't be alarmed by this or the effect that it has on the next generation of Blacks.

Yea makes sense to me!
Pisc:

If that's all you're able to hear, then there won't be any changing your mind. That is not at all what Obama said. You should listen to the speech. Don't just skim the transcript looking for pull quotes that support your preconceived notions. Have the decency and respect to listen to the whole thing.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-20-2008, 06:36 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: The point

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Pisc:

If that's all you're able to hear, then there won't be any changing your mind. That is not at all what Obama said. You should listen to the speech. Don't just skim the transcript looking for pull quotes that support your preconceived notions. Have the decency and respect to listen to the whole thing.
Actually I didn't read it in the speech I read it in the comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
I'm glad that Bob brought up a point that has been unremarked upon in the MSM. The whole message and point of Obama's speech was to explain to white America that the sentiment that was shown in the Jeremiah Wright videos happens all the time in black churches and within the black community and is really not something to be alarmed about. And then he (Obama) went on to explain why many black Americans feel that way, and tried to show a parallel in the white community. I really don't see how the speech was in any way offensive. I don't understand Mickey's reaction at all. From a political perspective maybe, but I found it to be an incredibly well-written speech that was honest and pulled no punches in a very complex subject. Mickey thinks that everyone is as upset about welfare as he is, and everyone hates unions, and everyone is scared of a Mexican takeover. Unfortunately, his thumb is noticeably removed from the pulse of most Americans. Those are issues for SOME, but not on such an obsessive level as he sees them.

Looking forward to hearing Louwry/McWhorter discuss the speech.
as uncle ebeneezer's opinion of what Senator Obama need to accomplish in the speech. And yes I do happen to believe that the perpetuation of and the exhortation to anger and hate, by the leading authority figure of any community organization, is a problem for both the adult members of that organization and particularly troublesome in it's ability to influence and distort the attitudes and development of the children that are repeatedly subjected to this style of rhetoric in the presence of adults that not only don't object but in fact applaud it.

I almost never listen to political speeches anymore as I find that reading them, not skimming them as must be your practice as it is your want to attribute this to me, allows me to pay attention to what the politician actually says instead of being caught up by the emotional appeal and rapture of the moment and the delivery.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-20-2008, 06:49 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The point

Pisc:

Quote:
And yes I do happen to believe that the perpetuation of and the exhortation to anger and hate, by the leading authority figure of any community organization, is a problem for both the adult members of that organization and particularly troublesome in it's ability to influence and distort the attitudes and development of the children that are repeatedly subjected to this style of rhetoric in the presence of adults that not only don't object but in fact applaud it.
Well said. I trust, then, that you would be in favor of the media spending the next two weeks doing nothing but playing clips from John McCain's hate-speaking televangelist friends?

Quote:
I almost never listen to political speeches anymore as I find that reading them ... allows me to pay attention to what the politician actually says instead of being caught up by the emotional appeal and rapture of the moment and the delivery.
Your choice, but I think you miss out on a lot of information that way. The transcript doesn't give tone, emphasis, or body language. I can understand if you feel, from seven years of listening to the Current Occupant, "No great loss." But the thing is, a speech is intended to be heard or watched, and is written with that intention in mind. A speech is not a position paper, and a good speaker deserves to be heard at full bandwidth.

Besides, what's so bad about getting caught up in a little emotion? Do you also read sheet music instead of going to concerts and screenplays instead of going to the theater?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.