A primer in how not to apologize (or how to not apologize), by Barack Obama
Ever the eager teacher of Life Lessons for America, Obama obliges us by offering a classic example of the non-apology masquerading as an apology.
The rules:
(1) Start with a conditional. “If” is usually best. This reduces the “apology” to meaninglessness at the outset: perhaps an offense occurred, perhaps it did not. It’s all in the eye of the beholder—or the ear of the listener. If the speaker has an opinion on whether he/she erred, he/she is certainly keeping it to him/herself.
(2) Place the locus of the wrongdoing firmly in the perception of the offendee, not the act of the (possible) offender. Never say, “What I said was deeply offensive.” That’s too objective; remember there is no objective truth. The fact that someone took offense is not evidence that what was said was actually offensive.
(3) Reiterate, if necessary, and defend the content of the remarks while suggesting it was only semantics that caused any possible offense. When you do so, be careful to keep to the conditional so that you are actually saying nothing at all: “I may not have worded it properly…” (see Rule 1).
Class dismissed.
Clearly, our Great Orator missed out on the connotations of the word “cling” and forgot that linking examples like that implies similar value judgments on each.
Pingback:Nothing makes an angry liberal angrier than being laughed at… at Amused Cynic
Victor Davis Hanson on the subject of Snobama’s non-appology:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDA5YTc3YmJjM2U2NTdhNDJhYTFhMDk1YmU3ZTIxOTI
If this Demo has offended,
Think but this; and all is mended
That you have but slumbered here
While my blather did appear
And my changing hopeful theme
No more truthful than a dream.
Voters–do not reprehend
If you pardon, I will bend
Over and, as I am a lying schmuck,
I hope I can hold on to luck.
Now to twine my serpent’s tongue.
I will make amends ere long
Else Barack a liar call.
So — please blow me one and all.
Give me your votes if we be friends.
And Obama shall change all your ends.
Neo, you’re getting piquant, in both the usual and the original sense. It was so choice I lifted it and sent it to some friends (WITH attribution, I might add).
Thanks for a great blog!
And kudos to Vanderleun for channeling Puck.
Vanderleun:
That’s a veritable masterpiece. And it even starts with the obligatory “If.”
Obama might also be channeling Puck in thinking, “What fools these voters be!”
re: Obama might also be channeling Puck in thinking, “What fools these voters be!”
Oh, indeed! And more and more, I scratch my head! What magic doth he wrought?!
(Note: ‘wrought’ as defined by Dictionary.com: (#37) “to influence or persuade, esp. insidiously: to work other people to one’s will.” (How perfect is that?)
I dubbed him the Pied Piper long ago. He plays some magical tune as he leads so many rats into the sea…… (or lemmings off a cliff — take your pick!) Those of us who cannot hear said tune, should just be thankful. Problem is, our system of democracy says that if the majority choose to go off the cliff, we go with them! (At least we’re not following blindly, and perhaps can pack a parachute…..?)
The thing is I really do not think Obama and his kind see anything wrong with what he said. He was just feeling sympathy for a bunch of losers whose lives are going down the toilet and so they cling deseperately to any crutch they can find. Like God.
What? What did I say? You were offended? Really? White trash has feelings, who knew?
Terrye:
“He was just feeling sympathy for a bunch of losers whose lives are going down the toilet and so they cling deseperately to any crutch they can find. Like God. “
Or illegal immigration. Imagine a presidential candidate pronouncing them down-state hicks as mere racist bigots for wanting to see tighter controls over immigration.
Oh, I’m sorry, that wasnt Obama that said that.
The more I see of Obama, the more convinced I become that the kid is just not ready for primetime. He has no “feel” for Middle America at all, and should not even consider running for president until he has done some work to get that “feel.” He should sit at least the next two presidential cycles out. Maybe in eight or sixteen years he’ll have grown, but just looking at the number of gaffes he’s making on his campaign trail (and I’m not even counting the whole toxic Wright thing) is not instilling me with confidence about his ability to manage a country. Not that I was going to vote for him anyway, but….
What worries me is that he’s making all these gaffes–but there are still six months before the general election. To me, the Wright story should have been an automatic torpedo–it should have sunk his candidacy right then and there, esp. when combined with other things like his refusal to wear a flag pin, or Michelle “for the first time in my life I’m proud of my country” Obama’s statements. Yet somehow–it didn’t. Somehow he kept on going. I worry that these gaffes will be long buried by the media when Election Day rolls around.
I read Hanson’s critique of the apology and apparently it wasn’t abject enough for him. Lacked a certain element of grovelling and self-abasement.
Tsk, tsk, Obama. Mr. Hanson wants to hear how BAD you are, what a contemptible “elitist” swine you are, how “out of touch” you are with the American people.
BITTER? Because their jobs have gone south and 25 years of Democratic and Republican promises have failed to turn anything around for them? How absurd! How could anyone POSSIBLY be embittered by such trifling concerns. They are RESOLUTE, determined, forward-looking . . .
I would venture to guess that most of the people Obama was talking about knew EXACTLY what he was talking about, knew that he was the only candidate who really “GOT” their bitterness, really “got” their anger – – and nobody was gonna score any points with them by pretending bewilderment, by asking, “What anger?” “What bitterness?”
To me, the whole flap about Obama’s “blunder” shows nothing but the desperation that must have enveloped the McCain and Hillary campaigns by now, the frustration born of the sinking feeling in their gut that finally their brand of optimistic, feel-good BS is no longer working, that the voters are seeing straight through it, they’re tired of it in fact, that Obama, who tells it like it is (more or less, he’s still a politician after all) is far more appealing than their lame “I ran through sniper fire for you” or “I was tortured by Communist fiends for you” bullshit. And “Vote for me or Islamofascism gonna git yo’ mama.” Your day is done, guys – – punch out and go home.
I love when the Lefties work themselves up and start behaving/talking as emotionally stable as Carrie’s mother (From the Stephen King book)
Michael what’s it like being a member of a cult of personality?
Micheal, you’ve perfectly missed the argument, just as plain and almost as predictable as a liberal can. This is because you dont get it either!
Red state “fly-over” Americans dont “cling” to guns and God because of economic reasons. They have always had those values and they aren meant to be easialy bought off by a government program. And a slick liberal politician. Peoples concerns about illegal immigration doesnt make them instant bigots. Thats the real issue here.
I got Obama’s point exactly. He was responding to a question which raised the difficulty that a liberal would have in reaching out to a community of voters who were hostile to immigration and gun control as well as religiously influenced to be anti-gay-rights and anti-evolution.
In other words, these folks were gonna be a tough sell for a liberal like Obama.
And Obama’s point was: I UNDERSTAND these folks. I know that they’re bitter and angry (something which Hillary foolishly denies and McCain doesn’t even seem to consider) and I know that their bitterness and anger makes them lash out – – at immigrants, gays and even gun control legislation. Sorry, folks, that’s not condescension, that is REALISM. And the other candidates can deny it or ignore it at their peril. I’m betting a lot of these guys are saying, God-damn right I’m angry and Obama’s the only guy who’s getting it.
Now to try to twist his words – – that Obama has accused those hard-to-reach voters of being, for example, bigots – – is just not true. He DIDN’T ascribe their views to bigotry but to the anger and frustration that they very legitimately feel.
Now that’s not to say that there are no bigots or ignorant religious fanatics amongst them – – there undoubtedly are, and they are never gonna vote for Obama in a million years, so he did not “sacrifice” any of their votes by what he said. But for the ones whose anti-immigrant, anti-gay attitudes are generated or exacerbated by their legitimate frustration and anger, I think that just knowing that Obama understands them and does not condemn them will turn a lot of their once-lost votes into Obama votes.
I love it… the fact that people aren’t Obama supporters MUST BE because they’re angry and bitter!
The arrogance! The elistism!
Does it even dawn on you Leftists that this country does not want socialism? And we certainly dont want socialism fused with a government that Jesse Jackson would wish for in his most intense wet dreams.
Micheal Taylor:
:Sorry, folks, that’s not condescension, that is REALISM.”
Socialist Realism to be more precise. It again ascribes a motivation to people you’ve never met and do not understand. It defiantly is arrogant condensation that says, if people had more government programs or entitlements or maybe just a little more pocket change, they’d naturally be liberals rather than the NASCAR Bible-thumping gun nuts they are today. This is why there is so much resentment for what Obama has said.
Again, that you dont get it, is typical.
Well, Obama has managed to divert attention from Rev Wright. However, out of the kettle, into the frying pan is not usually the best strategy.
Michael,
Let me guess: you’ve never been anywhere in the US that couldn’t be reached by subway.
I got Obama’s point exactly.
Of course you do: you hate the great unwashed American Middleclass and so does Obama.
Brilliant!
Perhaps Obama was trying to reach democrats of Levittown Pennsylvania.
Steve Woods sat drinking a Coors Light and talking with his buddies. A Philadelphia Phillies spring-training game was on TV, and he glanced up at it every time the audio picked up the crack of the bat. I asked him if the presidential campaign interested him. “Absolutely,” he said. Rapid fire, he told me the issues he cared about: “No. 1, gas prices. It’s killing everybody. No. 2, immigrants. They should go back to Mexico. Three, guns. Everybody should have the right to bear arms. In fact, everyone should have a gun in this day and age.”
I wondered if he was a Republican. “Are you kidding?” he said. “I’m a Democrat all the way. I hate Republicans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/magazine/06race-t.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1
First of all, I never claimed that everyone who does not support Obama must be angry and bitter. That’s just absurd. There are a lot of people who have seen the American Dream yanked out from under their feet and they are in fact angry and bitter. Obama says they’re a tough sell but they’re not unreachable. The first step to reaching them is to let them know that he understands their anger and their bitterness – – feelings which Hillary denies and which McCain never bothers to address.
This is a fairly straightforward statement of fact. It’s so straightforward and so true that some conservatives have trouble dealing with it – – so they don’t. They twist it into something else entirely – – that anyone who is not on Obama’s side must be angry and bitter. Then they ridicule THAT statement. Well, fine, guys – – have fun with it, but it’s not what I said and it’s not what Obama said.
For good measure, they drag in socialism. And Jesse Jackson. Obama’s a socialist? Funny I never noticed. The last time the conservatives were trying to assassinate Obama’s character, they were trying to hang Tony Rezko – – an unabashed capitalist – – around his neck. Guess that didn’t pan out, so now they’re working more familiar ground – – America doesn’t want socialism. Well, that’s good, because, apparently, neither does Obama. And Jesse Jackson?
Jessie JACKSON??? Get real, guys, that is so yesterday. OBAMA’s the candidate now, remember? Wake-up call, guys, coffee’s on. Get it while it’s hot.
Oh, and about “more government programs” and “more entitlements?” – – better lissen up, people. Obama did not even MENTION “entitlements” and “government programs” once in the course of his “elitist” and “out of touch” speech – – he was talking about the staggering loss of jobs and homes that those angry and bitter (oops, make that cheerful and happy) Rust Belt residents are concerned about. Well, not of much concern to you conservatives, obviously, but as Obama sees it, of some import to the Rust Belters themselves, whose votes he will be seeking. I’m betting they’ll see it more his way than your way – – which is probably why Hillary’s lead keeps shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. Well, but NICE TRY, guys – – never let reality get in the way of a good conservative rant, I always say. Keep on raving.
Michael, again, wrong argument, and I might add, a little dishonest as well.
“First of all, I never claimed that everyone who does not support Obama must be angry and bitter.”
Not the argument. No where near what we were talking about. We were discussing Obama’s (and like minded big-city liberals), condescending tone for people they traditionally dont find support.
Obama, in San Francisco (among a crowd of wine and bree tasting leftist supporters) said this about down state blue-collar guys:
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…//…it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
The flavor and intent is perfectly clear. In other words, with out benefit of post “foot-in-mouth” spin doctoring; what Obama is saying that the only reasons these poor broken sods carry on with their tobacco chewin’ pork-rind eating xenophobic beer drinking slobs is the state of the economy, and not real world time honored convictions, convictions with real merit—those who are not to be dismissed based upon a “progressive” world view hatched at some University somewhere.
“Obama said he is amazed and surprised by this “dust-up” but admitted that his words were chosen badly. He said he deeply regretted … that his words were misinterpreted.”
–blogs.abcnews.com
Perfectly lawyerly and Clintonesta-like in both form and content.
Harry, all I got out of Obama’s exact words was that he was describing a prevalent mood in the small towns where people are angry and bitter over loss of jobs. Is it really a surprise that people who are angry and bitter over economic catastrophes they can’t control will turn on “people who aren’t like them” or adopt “anti-immigrant sentiment?”
You’d have to be living in a dream-world to deny that this is a natural consequence of economic disaster among the people hardest hit by it.
Turn to religion, cling to their guns? I think Obama meant they become resentful over issues of religion and gun control to the point where they vote their resentments – – and that would be where Obama might have a hope in reaching them, re-directing that anger towards the real sources of their misery, take the focus off their religious and anti-gun-control issues. Don’t forget, he didn’t make these remarks in an academic conference on the psychopathology of Appalachia, they came specifically out of the context of how he was going to reach these guys.
If you take his words out of that context, it’s easy to say he overgeneralized, but I think anyone who heard them in context would understand that (a) he wasn’t saying he could win over all of them, and (b) he was articulating common interests that he could show to SOME of them, whose apparent homophobia and xenophobia were either wholly created by or grossly magnified by the economic issues that he was trying to address. Now obviously, there are others he’ll never be able to reach, those dyed-in-the-wool conservatives whose primitive and regressive views are NOT the product of economic adversity and they would not have been the object of his comments.
You really do need to read in context, Harry. People engage in verbal give-and-take, remarks are made to answer questions and when we examine those remarks, it’s good to keep in mind what was intended when they were spoken – – was the speaker, for instance, focused on answering a specific question (how was Obama gonna make any headway in a region where so many folks seemed to be anti-immigrant etc.?) or was he expressing a general point of view regarding the nature of religious believers generally, etc.? I think the answer in this case is pretty clear – – so taking the words in context, they are not only innocent but they happen to be true, wise and perceptive.
BITTER? Because their jobs have gone south and 25 years of Democratic and Republican promises have failed to turn anything around for them? How absurd!
there and in further comment you’ve attempted, however feebly, to say that the problem with his comment was that it was about bitterness. Absolutely not. The problem with his comment is that he thinks that because of bitterness about economic problems, people “cling to cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
And you wish to tell us that he “understands” middle America? About as well as you do apparently. I think Tao9 nailed it.
You may not realize it, but some people believe the constitution protects the right of gun ownership. Some people believe there is a God, and that their faith in him is a blessing in their lives. Some people don’t like others who break the rules, jump the line, and then demand protections and benefits not legally due them. This is the product of bitterness? Or is it the product of common sense?
I realize most readers here already understood it and some have tried to explain it to you, but I thought I’d give it one more shot.
harry McHitlerburtonstein the Extremist Says:
“Oh, I’m sorry, that wasnt Obama that said that.”
Yep… but he said it about me. So, it’s my job to be offended or not. Not yours… unless you were included in that jab.
Just like small town former industrial workers can decide what they think about Obama in regards to these comments.
As to me, I’d like to smack McCain for those comments… but it’s not as bad as insulting my belief in God or trying to grab my gun… So, I’ll vote for him…. Considering the alternative…
Of course people have the right to own guns. Of course some people believe in God and find that it enriches their lives. And of course there are some who believe that line-jumpers who enter the country illegally are offensive.
The issue that Obama was addressing was anger and bitterness caused by economic dispossession. That anger and bitterness drives SOME people to vote on secondary issues (gun control, gay marriage, anti-immigrant xenophobia) when the driving force behind their vote, as Obama sees it, should be more basic issues: war, job loss, home loss, loan sharking, etc.
What Obama was saying, I think, was that there are some votes, probably MANY votes, in the depressed areas of the rust belt, where the anger and bitterness that are generated by economic crisis are diverted into political positions that in good times would be at most secondary, if not totally negligible issues for many people. If he can lance that bitterness, he will bring many gun-lovers, war lovers, gay-bashers, immigrant haters, etc. over to his side. Not ALL of them – – some are genuinely into their views for reasons NOT related to the economy – – but no voter gets to vote one issue at a time. If he (Obama) can reach through the bitterness, defuse it by showing that HE gets it, they may STILL believe that gay marriage is wrong, still believe that line-jumpers should be sent back, still believe that every man, woman and child should pack some heat; BUT, without that anger and bitterness fueling their voting decisions, they just might decide that Obama is on their side on the issues that really make the biggest difference to them, and reason rather than unbridled emotion will drive their vote.
So the anger and bitterness might not make them religious or homophobic but without that anger and bitterness, they’ll put the gay marriage issue into perspective.
I don’t really understand why this is such a difficult concept for some to grasp.
I don’t really understand why this is such a difficult concept for some to grasp.
um because it’s total bullshit , maybe?
That argument really doesn’t make a lot of sense, Michael, because it lacks a basic internal consistency. In good times, the economic considerations in an election should be less because, if things are going well, people will have less to fret about regarding the economy. I would think it would be then that they would look to what you like to call “secondary” issues. After all, the economic side would already be taken care of and they could vote on other issues that are important and relevant to them. And who knows, they might not even consider them secondary – that’s your description. And that’s part of what shows you don’t get it. You’re ascribing your values to someone else, without any basis for doing so except you think that is how they should think (“put the gay marriage issue into perspective”).
What you seem to be saying is that people will vote on non-economic issues during economic hard times and economic issues during easy economic times. It doesn’t make any sense. It almost seems like you think they’re stupid. “What’s the matter with Pennsylvania?” – is that what you’re saying?
I see how my conservative friends not only love to generalize, but to force everyone else’s comments into generalizations too. For example: “What you seem to be saying is that people will vote on non-economic issues during economic hard times and . . .”
No. Wrong. That is NOT what I am saying.
“People” don’t do anything. INDIVIDUALS act, not some monolithic “people.”
What I was saying involves a little more sophisticated analysis of events – – not a whole lot of sophistication but at least the recognition that people can vote for the same cause or person yet come to their position through different routes. Depending on the route that brought them there, some of those folks can be more easily detached from their position and won back to Obama’s side than others. Obama says he can win back those whose “conservative” position today is really rooted in anger and bitterness over economic hard times. NOT that everyone who votes like that is motivated by anger and bitterness, but that some are, many are, and those are the ones he will aim at, turn them around. In significant numbers to make a difference. Sure, some of them don’t fit that model – – too bad. He never said he’d win over every last one of them.
Anyone who denies that economic hardship and collapse can turn people angry and bitter, and that some of those angry, bitter people will turn to right-wing causes, is just living in a dream-world. Obama is just saying that he knows a way to get some of those folks back in touch with what HE (a liberal) considers to be in their own best interests. Not necessarily the same as what most conservatives might think of as being in their (the depressed Pennsylvanians’) best interests, but why the hell should he have to see those issues through the eyes of a conservative? Doesn’t he have the right to pitch his solutions to those voters and let THEM decide?
You think Obama and I are disrespecting the intelligence of those Pennsylvanians that he thinks he can turn around? Bullshit. He respects them enough to recognize their anger, recognize its legitimacy, and address it with his proposed solutions – – which is a hell of a lot more than either McCain or Clinton have done. Clinton won’t even admit it exists, and McCain is off supporting billion-dollar bailouts of billionaire robber corporations and trillion-dollar wars for the “freedom” of 23 million Iraqis, but zip for the Pennsylvanians who need it, and Obama proposes to remind them of certain facts that will tend to support that view of things and then hope that they will vote for HIS point of view and not his opponents’. What exactly is wrong with that?
Its the double liberal insult. The second being the disingenuousness of being told you didnt hear what you’ve heard the first time around:
“they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment “
Now, liberals like Michael Taylor are furthering the division of people he’s never met into subclasses of people that they consider rubes:
1. People that might bend their convictions with the substance-less lure of “hope” and “change”
2. Hard core racist bigot Republican voters.
Thats how liberals see people they’ve never met.
BTW: Isnt it perfectly “progressive” to assume for other people or attribute their reasons and motivations? Have those down-state rubes described themselves as “angry”? How is it that Obama and his disciples get to make not only that characterization, but to which things “angry” people get to “cling” to?
You bet thats arrogant!
> “People don’t need a president who looks down on them,” she [Clinton] said. “They need a president who stands up for them.”
So, people don’t need YOU then, eh, Hillary ?
(Note, for anyone who does not grasp the above, I suggest you look at the dictionary definition of demagogue, a word which clearly describes both Dem candidates)
Why is Obama apparently criticizing people for being against free trade in this statement, while campaigning on a protectionist platform?
How Obama works out a problem:
Problem: Down state whites wont vote for me.
Rationalization: They must be bitter and economically oppressed, otherwise they would naturally flock to my empty-suit candidacy. Poor racist slobs. they do not have proper access to PBS and NPR.
Fix: Explain away downstate rubes as “bitter”, needing to “cling” to primitive anti-enlightened liberal belief system to fellow snob San Francisco elitists.
Harry sez: >
Oh you heard it all right. What you pretend NOT to have heard is the context in which it was said, the question it was meant to answer. The focus of the remark – – basically on the lack of solid foundation for many (not all) of the seemingly conservative Rust Belters. Whether or not Barak really understands them, and if he does, whether his understanding translates into enough votes to tip the balance.
We’re going round in circles on this one – – time will tell whether a numerically significant number of the Rust Belters feel they have absorbed some deadly insult from Obama or whether they feel he’s the only one who really understands where they’re coming from. The proof will be in the pudding.
Harry sez: >
No, none of them. They’re all happy as clams because their jobs are gone and their homes foreclosed. Who could POSSIBLY be angry over such trivia when the sun comes out every day and shines down on them? Obama made it all up. It’s crazy to think folks become angry and bitter when they lose their homes and their jobs. Never happened before in the entire history of the human race. They walk into bankruptcy court singing. They bunk down in their friends’ and relatives’ basements laughing from the pure joy of it all. Honest. Ask Hillary if you don’t believe me.
Sorry, guys. Tried to cut and paste Harry’s remarks into my post but they didn’t post. So you’ll have to guess which of Harry’s remarks I was responding to. Shouldn’t be hard. My apologies. Won’t make that mistake again.
Micheal, you continue to ascribe an emotion or condition of people you know nothing about.
You make the arrogant assumption that people are “bitter”. They must be if they dont agree with your viewpoints.
You make the further assumption that they “cling” to something for their “bitterness”
Since they appear not to adhere to your liberal world view, you assume somthing should be wrong with them.
That–is out of touch and arrogant.
And what evidence do we have that this bitterness exists?
Because they “cling” to guns and religion?
Because Obama says they’re bitter?
More liberal arrogance.
“And Obama’s point was: I UNDERSTAND these folks. I know that they’re bitter and angry (something which Hillary foolishly denies and McCain doesn’t even seem to consider) and I know that their bitterness and anger makes them lash out – – at immigrants, gays and even gun control legislation. Sorry, folks, that’s not condescension, that is REALISM.”
Darn, man, you’re as clueless as Obama.
I don’t know if Michael Taylor knows how really arrogant his staements are. Not unusual for most of the people I’ve encountered making the same arguments. Let me digest some:
“What I was saying involves a little more sophisticated analysis of events – -” This is “nuanced” which means “I know how to think in a more sophisticated way than you do. I’ve already discounted your arguments because I’m smarter than you are. ” You see this all the time in my profession.. academia.
“Anyone who denies that economic hardship and collapse can turn people angry and bitter, and that some of those angry, bitter people will turn to right-wing causes, is just living in a dream-world.”….. but of course only those who are bitter and angry turn to conservative ideas, not ever liberal positions. Michael needs to hop over to Dr. Sanity’s site and learn about projection.
“Obama is just saying that he knows a way to get some of those folks back in touch with what HE (a liberal) considers to be in their own best interests.”
… and this lies at the heart of Obama’s campaign: Obama as the messiah who will save those poor ignorant people from themselves and their miserable circumstances. It’s this aspect of his campaign that literally scares me the most.
Here’s the thing, people who are bitter about economic reality (manufacturing jobs going overseas where the cost of labor and shipping the product back to the US is lower) don’t “cling” to guns or religion as crutches. They were gun owners and Christian before when they had jobs, so to use “cling” is elitist and out of touch.
Secondly, Obama’s philosophy of greivance and retribution is classist to the hilt – in his non-racial race speech he claimed both black and white poor ought to unite in a common hatred for rich white business owners as the cause of their poverty. The unity he promotes is thus not racial qua racial, but ideological along classic Marxist class lines of poor vs. rich. But that’s not a hopeful philosophy because the moment one person – black or white succeeds somehow past the norm of their peers they enter the ranks of the “evil” rich capitalists. Unless they are members of his party and contributors to his campaigns of course.
Good luck trying to set the conditions for a better economic future and improved manufacturing job prospect by the demonization of the rich idea. That’s not a recipe for national unity or social harmony but a ‘revolution’ – and a bloody one at that.
You guys are hilarious. I’m “arrogant” because I don’t agree with you and worse yet, tell you why I don’t agree, or why my explanation is the better one. Obviously, if my explanation is better than your explanation, I’m “arrogant.” I should just keep my mouth shut and agree with whatever BS you want to spout. For example, that nobody gets bitter and angry because they lost their home and their job, while “their” government hands out billion-dollar bail-outs and tax cuts to billionaires. How “arrogant” of me to assume that stuff like that causes anger or bitterness. Who’s angry? How dare I assume anyone’s angry? Did I go there and poll thousands of them to SEE if they’re angry? WOW. What planet do you guys live on again? I’m really hard-pressed to think of anything more ridiculous, but I’m open to your next big idea.
“You see this all the time in my profession – – academia.” Yeah, that’s the shame of it all. Professors who actually KNOW something about the subject telling their crackpot right-wing students that No, your uninformed, naive, illogical and downright crazy ideas are NOT equal to informed thought and opinion on the subject. A liberal professor should just nod approvingly and say nothing if he can’t be supportive of whatever loony right-wing nonsense he is subjected to. THAT’S the spirit of academic discourse and that’s why we of Bob Jones University of the Ozarks stand today in the vanguard of knowledge advancement of the most knowledgeable body of citizens in the entire world.
If I could deal with Mike M’s criticisms in a more detailed manner:
In the first place, I was responding to a post which attempted to correct me by explaining that in economic hard times, “people” would normally be expected to vote economic interests first, not religious or gun-control issues. So I responded to a simple analysis, of how “people” responded to hard times, with an analysis of how SOME “people” might respond by anger, bitterness, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. and OTHER “people” might respond more rationally by rejecting those politicians who had allowed the problems to accumulate. So while my analysis accounted for two different responses of voters to hard times, the first analysis (to which I was responding) accounted for only one kind of response that voters might be expected to show. YOU figure out which of the two analyses was the more sophisticated – – the “one response fits all voters” or my own “diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks” analysis. Personally, I prefer a sophisticated and realistic analysis to a crude and cartoonish one, but hey, if I offended anyone by calling my analysis more sophisticated – – well, just . . . cry me a river.
Mike M. then goes on to mock my views by mis-stating them as “ONLY those who are angry and bitter turn to conservative ideas.” Not what I said, not what Obama said, but don’t ever let reality get in the way of your twisted arguments. There are obviously Republicans who came to their convictions without economic hardship playing any part in the process, without anger and without bitterness, but Obama was not talking about winning THEM over. Obama’s theory, once again, was that some – – many – – of the so-called conservative Rust Belters DID come to their positions because of economic disaster, and he felt that he COULD reach them, recognizing their anger (and understanding it) being the first steps in that direction. Time will tell if he called that correctly but I believe that he did.
And finally, Mike M. is upset that Obama believes he as a liberal can convince these poor dumb schmucks that he knows where their best interests lie. SHOCKING!!! Imagine it – – a politician telling people he knows what’s good for them. McCain can tell people a $3 trillion war for Iraqi “freedom” is good for them, that bailing out Bear Stearns is good for them but debt relief is not good for them etc., etc. – – craziest stuff I ever heard, by the way – – but when OBAMA the uppity black tells the good white folk of PA what HE thinks is good for them, he suddenly becomes a “messiah” and this literally “scares poor Mike M. the most.” Geeze, I’m sorry Obama scared you so much, Mike M. I’m SURE he didn’t mean to. What if he PROMISES not to eat your children for dinner? Will that get you down out of that tree?
Michael Taylor is turning into a parody.
“Michael Taylor is turning into a parody.”
Translation: our bullshit doesn’t work any more, we’re making ourselves look absolutely ridiculous with every line we post, but admit it? Not on yer life! Nevver.
It’s more like… oh here’s yet another Obama supporter spewing the same exact false reasons that every other Obama supporter has spouted.
Many people took the time to point out where you’re wrong. But of course you dont accept that , and do just what Obama did, which is apply BS analysis of the motivation of people you dont even know.
You should know that rational logical people do not enjoy dealing with blinded, irrational political ideologues like you. You actually think you’re giving us some sort of original insightful POV.. but you’re not. Stop fooling yourself..
Look at these poll numbers. Obama’s poll numbers are worse than they were during the Wright thing.
Pennsylvania
Likely Democratic Primary Voters
Mar 7-8
Mar 26-27
Apr 5-6
Apr 11-13
Clinton 52% 51% 45% 57%
Obama 41% 39% 45% 37%
Someone else 1% 2% 4% 2%
Undecided 6% 8% 6% 4%
Gee Michael Taylor . Why is the Democratic voting base everything that just accused evil conservatives of being.
“. . . another Obama supporter spewing the same exact false reasons that every other Obama supporter has spouted.”
Oh, that’s brilliant. Translation: “ANOTHER one who doesn’t buy our right-wing crap.”
“Many people took the time to point out where you’re wrong.” [Thanks, people.] “But of course you don’t accept that . . . ” [Of course I didn’t accept it – – it made no sense.] ” . . .[you apply] bullshit analysis of people you don’t even know.” [Yep, I am guilty as charged – – analyzed the motives of people I don’t even know.]
Do you understand how utterly ridiculous your last statement is? Any idea at all? That I can’t form an opinion of anyone’s motivation unless I KNOW them? I guess on that, uh, INTERESTING theory of yours, I am barred from expressing any opinion at all on what motivated Nazi supporters of Hitler in the 1930’s, Civil War participants on both sides of the U.S. Civil War, perpetrators and victims of the Rwanda massacre, Crusaders, early Christians, etc. – – What made ’em tick? Why’d they do what they did? How’d they feel about it all? Uhh, geeze, I dunno man, never met the dudes personally, nobody ever did – – guess we’ll all go to our graves knowing absolutely nothing about any of it. Is there some kind of prize for willful ignorance? Because you are definitely in the runnng if there is.
No, I’ve never met the people of Pennsylvania. Obama and I must be absolutely nuts to even imagine that ANY of ’em could possibly be angry and bitter about what’s happened to them. [scratching head and wondering really WHAT PLANET are these guys from and how long have they been on this one?]
As for the last para of your post, you had better stop deluding yourself as to who are the “rational logical people” you presume to speak for and who are the “blinded irrational political ideologues,” as you seem to have that one turned around 180 degrees. Nothing you have said meets any test of logic or reason (once I corrected the facts that you deliberately mis-stated) that I know of, and some of it (denial that some Pennsylvanians or anyone else would be angry and bitter about losing homes and jobs and pensions) is so outrageously false that no sane and normal person could read it without laughing out loud. WHO is blinded by ideology here? Fool yourself all you want to, I and any other sane and normal person already know the answer.
“Is there some kind of prize for willful ignorance?”
YES! And the winner for ALL TIME is….
Michael Taylor!
It’s pointless to try and explain to a Michael Taylor or Barack Obama why those statements were offensive. They just don’t get it and never will.
However, I have seen this sort of thing before – way back in 1972. (That was the first presidential election I cast a vote in.) I believe that, politically, Barack Obama is the ghost of George McGovern. So regardless of what you believe Obama said, or meant to say, here is my prediction:
If Hillary Clinton wins the Democrat nomination, the November race will be close. She might even win. If, however, Barack Obama is the nominee, it won’t be close. It will be the 1972 Republican landslide all over again.
Agree or disagree – I don’t care.
Well, it certainly seems that Hillary understands why the remarks were condescending, putting her firmly in the ranks of pandering opportunist without conviction type liberal, where we can clearly now label Obama’s box as “dedicated socialist academic type”.
I love making these little boxes for these people and shoving them inside.
Now for McCain, I’m labeling his box “refund in full” and hoping I can get better for my money.
This is the man who identifies with the lowly blue collar worker of rual america:
Obama appeared at 2004 party at Rezko’s home Chicago Tribune
April 14, 2008; 12:57 p.m.
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama’s name came up again at the Antoin “Tony” Rezko corruption trial and in a way that earlier filings in the case did not telegraph.
Stuart Levine, the prosecution’s star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire who Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real-estate development.
Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko’s bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.
The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama’s presence at the party was not previously known. At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity.
I’m really shocked at these latest revelations. Obama, a lawyer, attended a party at a client’s home. The client was an investor in real estate. But it gets worse still. Another guest at the party was also a real estate investor. The host wanted the guy to invest in one of his projects. (“Pour money into” is conservative-speak for “invest in,” when the conservative speaking doesn’t like the investors.) Neiher the host nor the guest have been convicted of anything, but that’s a mere detail
Is this gonna be an issue? I sure as hell hope it is!! McCain, if you recall, was a charter member of the Keating Five. (Go on, look it up.) McCain was at lots of parties with lots of investors, some, like his patron Charles Keating, actually were convicted. Of numerous crimes. Unlike Rezko and Auchi, they actually did time. SERIOUS time. I sure hope this campaign becomes about who went to whose parties, because in a slime-slinging party like that, Obama might get one or two drops splattered on his overcoat, but McCain is going to drown in the muck.
Another
You can tell a lot about a person by the people he chooses to associate himself with.
It seems Obama likes to associate with racists, criminals and terrorists.
McCain’s a snob – – he’d only associate with CONVICTED criminals. Guys who steal MILLIONS. Like Charles Keating, for example. Obama hasn’t been linked to any criminals so far, not as long as there’s a presumption of innocence still left in this country. And racists? Oh yeah, there’s Bob Jones – – McCain went to him. Seeking his endorsement. Terrorists? Well, he DID drop napalm, quite possibly on innocent Third World women and children, but I guess that doesn’t really count, does it? He was only following orders. But what “terrorists” did Osama associate with? Inquiring minds need to know.
1. Keating: McCain and Glenn were the two least involved in the Keating Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal. Their involvement was considered minimal at most, and both were reelected. It ended the careers of DeConcini, whom I liked, and two other senators. If you think that old scandal will tar McCain, you’re sadly mistaken. Unless of course it’s done in the sleazy manner yours epitomizes.
2. Napalm: After the Forrestal fire, in which McCain was injured by shrapnel while attempting to save another pilot’s life, McCain made the observation that he wasn’t sure whether he could drop ordinance on North Vietnam again, seeing what it did to his shipmates. Some terrorist. If anything, McCain was a lousy pilot. I believe he crashed four or five planes before being shot down in October, ’67. I am surprised that Neo hasn’t chimed in on your abysmal ignorance regarding Vietnam. By the way, a terrorist purposely targets non-combatants to, oh you know, terrorize in order to achieve a political end. That wasn’t policy in Vietnam.
3. Buying a home you can’t afford: I don’t believe that McCain received, directly or indirectly, over $300k from a “real-estate investor” in order to buy a home he couldn’t afford. Then acted like he didn’t, then said he never met another “real estate investor” when he had. The latter is the next real issue, not that he had attended a “client’s party”. Rezko and Auchi have less than stellar pasts, which is likely why Obama is attempting to gain distance. Should Rezko be convicted, then everything you have said about McCain will apply to Obama, in spades. Are you emotionally prepared for that, should it happen? Or will you lose integrity, denying your own words to save face?
4. Jones: Jones University did end its miscegenation rules, to the best of my knowledge. Also, to the best of my knowledge, McCain did not consider Bob Jones his mentor, nor did he attend services there for 20 years. However, Wright is still a racist and Obama has attempted in lawyerese to blame everyone else for viewing Wright as a racist. I do have to admit that initially I wanted to dismiss what you wrote as childish, unbalanced tu quoque, which it was, but thought some reply was best.
Having read your posts, I must ask you, which campaign have you worked on as their chief spin-meister? You certainly have a knack for half-truths through selective emphasis.
Point taken.
And I assume, in your nuanced argument, that you’re not implying that all angry bitter people going “wingward” are heading to the right, correct? You do countenance the possibility that some angry, bitter people might veer to the hard left in their beliefs. But I guess you’re assuming Obama doesn’t have to fight for those (unless they’ve gone so far that they’ve reached Socialist Workers Party territory).
As to the merit of Obama’s argument, and the merit of his apologies and explanations, I think it’s pretty clear by what he said, how he worded it, and the audience he said it in front of, that he lacks a certain respect for the group of (hypothetical) people he was referring to. He certainly doesn’t consider himself one of them, since he doesn’t “cling” to any of those things. He might be trying to win their votes, but only as an outsider analyzing them like a class anthropology project. Some people will surely feel that distance and lack of a connection and vote accordingly.
What amazes me in a more general sense is that, in another era, a Democratic candidate worth his salt would be assumed to be one of those people in some way, shape or form. That would have been his birth place and proving ground and he wouldn’t have to study those people from afar (and report back to his billionaire buddies behind closed doors about what he’d discovered in his travels through the electoral wilds). Now there is a whole class of Democratic Party leadership that lives a privileged, culturally isolated, frequently wealthy existence cut off from a personal connection to the historical roots of their party. The issues seemingly most important to them (environmentalism, identity politics, for instance) are often at odds with the interests of the rank and file party members, or if not at odds, are given a much higher priority than they might otherwise expect to be given if the upper party leadership actually reflected the bulk of Democratic voters. I just wonder how long that situation can continue.
kcom: Hear, Hear!
Obama has clearly done exactly as Neo wrote both regarding Wright and now with his gaffe in Pennsylvania, parse his words in the passive and conditional. I do believe he is a great orator who, as my teenage son noticed, says nothing. When you deconstruct his speeches the transcript is blank.
Evidently, Pennsylvania Democrats are not impressed, given that Clinton is now pulling ahead substantially.
And if you finally still cant understand, there’s this article:
Obama Wasn’t Just Insulting Pennsylvanians
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/476297ad-3801-43d7-a670-bb68b3f58741
Ariel – –
1. my point was that McCain is linked much more directly to crooked business by Keating than Obama is by Rezko. Keating was convicted and did time. Rezko wasn’t even convicted. Obama was just Rezko’s lawyer but McCain was an elected representative who betrayed his trust. He escaped jail because of incredibly lax rules at the time – – today he’d have served time for what he did then.
Everyone knows it’s a worse offence for an elected official to take money from a crook and then use his public office to let the crook continue to rip people off than it is for a lawyer to represent a shady client.
2. “McCain wasn’t sure if he could drop napalm again . . . ” yeah. Note the operative word, “Again.” He’s got WAY more innocent blood on his hands than the average “terrorist.” BTW, your comments on Viet Nam policy are way off particularly that the U.S. did not use terror or the deliberate targeting of civilians. You obviously don’t know jackshit about it, or you’d know all about Operation Phoenix, in which teams organized by the CIA gruesomely tortured and murdered about 60,000 CIVILIAN supporters of the Viet Cong. I’d be a little more careful in throwing around terms like “abysmal ignorance” until you know who you’re talking to.
3. I really don’t think you get the distinction between a lawyer in private practice receiving an overly generous loan from a grateful if somewhat shady client and a LEGISLATOR who takes money from a crook who later goes to JAIL for FRAUD, and not just buying a home but actively AIDING THE CRIMINAL to defraud working-class Americans of their life savings.
If I were advising OBAMA, I’d tell him to round up Keating’s victims, or better yet, their children, and tell people live on TV just EXACTLY how McCain helped Keating to defraud poor old mum and dad of their life savings, and how bitter and sad their last years were. What you’re not getting is that Keating’s frauds, KNOWINGLY assisted by Mc Cain for a share of the loot, ROBBED hard-working American citizens of their life savings. Are you starting to get it yet? That kind of trumps getting a 300K loan to buy a house from a guy who isn’t convicted of anything. And even if Rezko’s convicted, you’d still have to show that Obama did something in breach of a public trust to facilitate the crime.
Honest to God, I am SALIVATING over this one. I think if handled right, this issue alone will toast McCain’s ass. They can KILL him with this if they do it right.
4. Jones is a racist and a bigot. These guys never change, but sometimes circumstances force them to moderate their public stance. Everyone knows what Jones is and McCain sucked up to him for support. Wright is not a racist, he’s mad as hell and Obama told us why. I get it. Lots of others get it. You don’t get it. That’s OK, that’s what elections are for. I’m betting that nobody is gonna see Wright as a big deal except those who would not have supported Obama anyway. I don’t think anyone is gonna see Jones as a big deal either, but I think that’s more because the Democrats don’t know how to run a good smear campaign like the Republicans can. Bob Jones could be a Democratic gold-mine, but the problem is that everyone who’s against white racism is already in the Obama camp anyway.
In answer to your last question, which I assume is facetious (but sadly wish it were not) I’ve never worked on anyone’s campaign, but I’d love to work for Obama. I still worry that Obama is just an empty suit, but the other two I KNOW are a couple of old whores, at least with Obama I feel I can hope for change. In the real world it goes down like this: Obama’s an empty suit; Obama means what he says but he can’t get Congress on his side; Obama means what he says AND gets Congress on his side. The last being the best I could hope for, except that I also know that if he DOES try to make real change and CAN get Congress on his side and the conservatives CAN’T sabotage him – – it’s still not gonna have a happy ending. We’re just gonna be treated to another “lone nut” gunman, “acting alone” etc. You know the drill.
kcom – – Keeping in mind that Obama’s remarks were directed to the question of how he’d win over PA rednecks, he obviously was NOT referring to people who’s anger and bitterness drove them to the left. They didn’t figure in the equation. In answer to your question, sure, anger and bitterness can drive people to the left as well. That was what Lenin meant when he said “Things have to get worse before they can get better.” Although we lefties prefer to believe that it is rational self-interest rather than anger and bitterness that is pushing to the left.
I very much like your point about the old-time Democratic candidate coming from the people. Must be OLD old-time, because FDR certainly was not a man of the people, but I know what you mean. Maybe FDR was the exception. I think your point has ramifications and specifically it goes into the death of the two-party system in the U.S., the transition from democracy to plutocracy.
Michael, I can practically hear the spittle. Its a wonder your messiah calls US bitter!
Im awful glad we’re the ones with a gun problem, cause there’s no telling what your would to in your condition. It only stands to reason we conservatives can be trusted to own a gun. Perhaps this is why Obama is un able to go figure it out.
One look in Michael’s direction and Obama may understand the difference between bitterness and distemper.
And not an animal control officer in sight
OK Harry, when you’ve got something intelligent to contribute, let me know. I see on Huf Post that PA voters don’t seem to think Obama’s words were all that important to them, but I guess you’d know a lot better than they do. Thanks for the heads-up.
MT,
I realize you’re morally confused, but you need to realize who those “civilians” were in the Phoenix Program, and what they were doing at the time. You need to do more reading. It wasn’t the finest hour, but it certainly wasn’t what you think it was.
Ogama was a Illinois State LEGISLATOR from 1997 to 2004. He made his first run to be a LEGISLATOR in the Us House in 2000, which he lost. He was a US Senator from 2004 on and bought his mansion with Rezco help in 2005 while he was a LEGISLATOR in th Senate. You really need help.
A racist is a racist. Anger is not an excuse. As I wrote, you are morally confused.
No reason to waste any more time here.
Ariel, I’m not at all confused about the Phoenix program and I know very well who the 60,000 civilian victims were. They were the civilian infrastructure of the VC – – everything from postmasters and tax collectors to schoolteachers and Boy Scout troop leaders. Executives of village women’s councils. Village nurse practitioners.
Maybe — just maybe, Ariel – – YOU are the one who is “morally confused.” Maybe, just maybe, YOU are the one who needs to do more reading.
I know what terrorism really is. I know what the PHoenix Program really was. I don’t care if you’ve pulled the wool over your own eyes, don’t try to pull it over mine.
While we’re on the subject of moral clarity and moral confusion, and just so that you’ll know: Jeremiah Wright is a very angry man, but he is not a racist. Bob Jones is a racist. And I do thank you for pointing out that Obama was a state legislator when he represented Rezko, which I had overlooked. Regardless, Obama, unlike McCain, was not chastized by the legislature in which he served for his dealings with Rezko, Rezko (unlike McCain’s patron, Charles Keating) was convicted of nothing and sentenced to nothing, and Obama, unlike McCain, did not materially assist a criminal in bilking thousands of Americans out of their life savings.
I can appreciate that your political blinders may well prevent you from seeing the awesome gap in culpability that separates McCain’s Keating Five activities from anything that Obama may have done, and I can only hope that other McCain supporters are as morally blind as you seem to be, because I would LOVE for this to become a campaign issue. I hope it will.
“In South Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s there was a secret network, which the U.S. intelligence services called the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI). This network provided the political direction and control of the Front’s (and North Vietnam’s) war within the villages and hamlets of the south.
By 1967 this network numbered somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 members throughout South Vietnam. Almost every village had a cell made up of a Communist Party secretary; a finance and supply unit; and information and culture, social welfare, and proselytizing sections to gain recruits from among the civilian population. The members reported up the chain of command, which, in turn, took orders from the Lao Dong Party Central Committee in North Vietnam. A preferred NLF tactic was to kill carefully selected government officials in order to drive the Saigon regime out of the region.[1]
The VCI laid down caches of food and equipment for regular force troops coming from border sanctuaries; it provided guides and intelligence for the People’s Army of Vietnam; it conscripted personnel to serve in local force (militias) and main force mobile combat units of the NLF, and levied taxes to facilitate the administration of a rudimentary civil government.”
They were more than simply civilians. I’m not going to argue this further as obviously we won’t come to any agreement whatsoever.
As for Wright, you can continue saying he is not a racist and I can continue to read transcripts and see clips of his sermons. And again no point in arguing.
Obama wasn’t chastized likely because it wasn’t on the radar yet. Not to mention the nature of Illinois politics and the Democratic machine in Chicago. To be correct, Rezco “gave him” over $650,000 to help buy a mansion. As a legislator at the time, he should not have accepted it whatsoever. Period. If Rezco is convicted, this money will come to haunt Obama. If Keating becomes an issue, and Rezco is convicted, both will be an issue. However, time is short and I doubt either will be a major factor.
Again, McCain was the least involved of the five, and Bennet even recently made the comment that McCain was included because otherwise it would have only been a Democrat scandal. I do take that with a grain of salt, as Bennet, who was the Special Investigator in the Keating Five if I remember correctly, was working as McCain’s lawyer at the time. But that was also a belief in Arizona at the time of the scandal.
I have lived in Arizona for most of my life and McCain is viewed here as an honorable but disagreeable man. He was viewed, in addition to the above, as a dupe in the Keating Scandal, which is why he was reelected. I have never voted for him at all during my time here because frankly, I can’t stand him. I preferred DeConcini, as I wrote before.
I remember the Lincoln collapse, as well as the scandal with the Keating Estrella community. Lived through it, and it simply confirmed what Mecham maintained: that the Arizona Legislature as well as US Reps and Senators were either corrupted by the developers here or would be. AZScam and the Keating Five bore him out to a degree. I couldn’t stand Mecham either
I unfortunately have attended the same church that many of Arizona’s powerful attend (a promise to a Christian wife). It gave me the chance to say hello to Goldwater before he died. It also left me with the dubious honor of “meeting” Sandra Day O’Connor by elbowing her in the breast.
Odd, one sentence was cut off. “I couldn’t stand Mecham either, and cheered when he was driven from office, but have to give him his due.”
According to your rationale, the Vietnamese could have killed American civilian railway employees, draft board officers, secretaries, etc.
Operation Phoenix victims were CIVILIANS, pure and simple. Like U.S. civilians they played a larger or smaller role in the war effort, but bottom line is that they were non-combatant civilians and protected by every international rule of law even before the Geneva Conventions. They were almost always killed after extreme torture, to further intimidate (terrorize) the local population.
It is total bullshit to try to defend the Phoenix Operation and/or to claim that it was not terrorism. Not that that would ever stop you from trying.
Michael,
You certainly are a wall of unassailable truths. Glad you’re self contained. Have a good life.
Thanks, Ariel. Snarky and insincere as expected. All you BS artists are the same when your arguments are exposed for the phony bullshit that they are. What else CAN ya say? (Except, “You’re right.” But that would take too much class for the likes of you.)
Michael,
It was neither snarky nor insincere. “A wall of of unassailable truths” simply means that no arguments will get through to you. I don’t believe your arguments are right, partly perhaps, but not totally.
Your comment at 2:54 simply buttresses my assessment. I used to have a friend that was a Wobblie, but it was possible to come to some agreement with him, or if not agreement, clarity. I don’t see that with you, especially if someone who disagrees with you, sincerely disagrees with you, is a “BS artist”.
Give others the right to believe differently than you.
I just sent a lengthy and considered reply to you, Ariel, and then after hitting “SEND,” found that the whole thing had just vanished. So now you get the short version – – “wall of unassailable truths” is just a sarcastic way of saying “close-minded schmuck.”
I carefully considered every argument you made and responded to it with logic and fact. There’s a moral dimension to the issue of torture so there was of necessity an element of moral condemnation in what I said. People question my logic, facts and morality every time I open my mouth, it’s in the nature of debate, I would hope. But after I had (very successfully in my opinion) rebutted your last point, there was no further argument on any level – – just an artfully-worded condemnation of my alleged “narrow-mindedness” – – an ad hominem attack to which I not surprisingly responded in kind. Supplemented by your latest insufferable admonition to “give others the right to believe differently than you.” Wow, radical idea, Ariel, I’ll try to keep it in mind. Thanks, coach.
You’e welcome.
Typing can kill a good retort.