Obama is not a good speaker and doesn't seem that intellegent

[livehard]

Ok ok, back to Obama:

Who would win in a fight, Samuel L Jackson or Obama?

Im done here, lock it if ya want

[73109]

Livehard, you're allowed to disagree with the President and the direction he's taking. You're allowed to disagree with and dislike his policies. You obviously have the right to voice opposing views and criticisms. It's a democracy, which thrives on differing points of view.
There's a way to approach this though.

When you just keep harping on meaningless talking points (like the whole community organizer thing), people are just going to tune you out. If you go on about superficial details instead of actual policy you disagree with, no one will take you seriously. Continuing to harp on things like Obama being a community organizer (which actually is a legitimate thing), or not having worked a day in his life when he clearly has, rather than voicing valid policy criticism (and there are many valid criticisms regarding the current administration), you come off as unintelligent, and not worth listening to.

Show us that this isn't true. Bring up some policy positions that you disagree with, and let's have a real, intelligent, mature debate. Even if neither side budges, it will be a much more enriching experience.

But this thread is about how community organizing is a joke.  Or that his speaking skills are sub-par.

So, when I volunteer my time and I.T. skills each month to the local Food Cooperative that currently feeds 75,000 families per month, that is a joke to you?  Feeding hungry children.   A joke?

When I organized a charity CD in 2005 (at great personal expense I might add) called The Tsunami Projekt, which resulted in a $10,000 donation to the Red Cross to help the victims of the Tsunami that is a joke to you?  Helping sick and injured people out by organizing the progrock community to donate some tunes to a CD.  A joke?

When my wife goes every Tuesday night and volunteers her time to help at a shelter for battered women, that is a joke to you?  Helping women and kids escape physical abuse and stay safe.  A joke?

There are all variations of community organizing.  All have enriched my life and the life of my wife.  All have taught me valuable lessons in life.

No offense, but the vast majority of what you've posted in this thread is inarticulate bilge.  You want to continue to regurgitate Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talking points and insults, go ahead, knock yourself out.  But I see no need to keep entertaining you or providing a platform for such nonsensical tripe.  When you're ready for a thoughtful, intelligent, respectful and reciprocal discussion of the actual issues, start a new thread and maybe I will participate.

That sounds like charity that doesn't sound like community organizing.  those don't sound like a waste of time.  You're once again putting words in my mouth.  And BSing and insulting me.  If the moderators had any sense of balance they would ban you for it.

Um, not being an ass or jabbing at mods, but it seems that the average mod around here is much more conservative than liberal. So...I think you're misled. If the mods were as liberal as you claim, your ass would be grass by now. But, you're still here.

[El Barto]

Interesting.  Of the mods that actually hang out in these parts,  I'd say it's a split representation.  PLM leans left.  Yesh is more of a pragmatist than anything else.  Bosk is a fascist.  I think it all pretty much balances out.

Oh yeah,  Nick hangs out here on occasion.  Raving and drooling libertarian.  Doesn't really change the balance any. 

[Scheavo]

So basically livehard, when you find out what community organizing actually is, you call it a charity and a good thing.

More on community organizing that you ignore (From the National Review article):

But at all times, the organizer’s goal was not to lead his people anywhere, but to encourage them to take action on their own behalf.

SO teaching people to fight for themselves. Sounds like a very good thing.

The long-term goal was to retrain workers in order to restore manufacturing jobs in the area; Kellman took Obama by the rusted-out, closed-down Wisconsin Steel plant for a firsthand look....

Obama got the ministers involved in several projects, without great success. There was a push to get more city money for South Side parks after the Justice Department told the Chicago Park District it had to spend more on minority neighborhoods. There were plans for after-school programs, and job retraining for adults. But if you ask Obama’s fellow organizers what his most significant accomplishments were, they point to two ventures: the expansion of a city summer-job program for South Side teenagers and the removal of asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects. Those, they say, were his biggest victories.

Wow, this seems extraordinarily pertinent to the role of government in the daily lives of people.

Face it, the job is extremely relevant, is firsthand experience in organizing a community. He talked with people, figured out what was bothering them, how he could get them to help themselves, how they could get the community they wanted, etc. I'd say this kind of job is wonderful in a democracy.

[yeshaberto]

Interesting.  Of the mods that actually hang out in these parts,  I'd say it's a split representation.  PLM leans left.  Yesh is more of a pragmatist than anything else.  Bosk is a fascist.  I think it all pretty much balances out.

Oh yeah,  Nick hangs out here on occasion.  Raving and drooling libertarian.  Doesn't really change the balance any.

El Barto, do you have a good definition for what is meant by "pragmatist."  you got me curious 

[El Barto]

Interesting.  Of the mods that actually hang out in these parts,  I'd say it's a split representation.  PLM leans left.  Yesh is more of a pragmatist than anything else.  Bosk is a fascist.  I think it all pretty much balances out.

Oh yeah,  Nick hangs out here on occasion.  Raving and drooling libertarian.  Doesn't really change the balance any.

El Barto, do you have a good definition for what is meant by "pragmatist."  you got me curious 

In the context I was using,  you tend to take a practical view of things, regardless of whether it could be considered a liberal or conservative stance.  I'm much the same way.

[73109]

PLM isn't a mod anymore. Just want to throw that out there.

[yeshaberto]

Interesting.  Of the mods that actually hang out in these parts,  I'd say it's a split representation.  PLM leans left.  Yesh is more of a pragmatist than anything else.  Bosk is a fascist.  I think it all pretty much balances out.

Oh yeah,  Nick hangs out here on occasion.  Raving and drooling libertarian.  Doesn't really change the balance any.

El Barto, do you have a good definition for what is meant by "pragmatist."  you got me curious 

In the context I was using,  you tend to take a practical view of things, regardless of whether it could be considered a liberal or conservative stance.  I'm much the same way.

oh, I got it.  thanks. 

[kirksnosehair]

I think at some point pragmatism can take on a bit of a "cop out" flavor.  No disrespect intended here at all, guys, but let me just explain what I mean.....

What I mean is, no one is 100% objective from a partisan standpoint.  Oh, sure, you can present yourself that way, but deep down, we all have our own partisan political convictions.  Especially on social issues.

For example:

You are either FOR or AGAINST the death penalty.  There's no middle ground here.

You are either FOR or AGAINST a woman's right to choose.  Again, no middle ground.

And there are dozens more social issues like this - for or against. 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how "pragmatic" you are.  You have to make a choice.

Sometimes, "pragmatism" ends up being "not making a choice"

At least, not openly.

Again, no disrespect intended at all here.

[yeshaberto]

but if I understand Barto's definition, it isn't a question of not making a choice, but not making a choice based on a pre-disposed political agenda.

[El Barto]

Certainly in the context that I was using it in.  I try to look for the right answer, regardless of which douchbag party staked their claim to it first.  I certainly couldn't call myself moderate,  but I'm happy to choose positions from both side of the spectrum as the situation dictates. 

[Scheavo]

You are either FOR or AGAINST a woman's right to choose.  Again, no middle ground.

While true on a basic level, this is also fallacious for drawing the lines in such dichotomous terms. For instance, in this issue, Obama is fairly pragmatic: he's for a woman's right to choose, but think that woman should choose to put the baby up for adoption, and other options, than to choose an abortion.

For the discussion in general, pragmatism on the abortion issue would also be recognizing the fact that, whether abortions are legal or not, they're still going to be practiced. Women will still ultimately have the choice to get an abortion, that choice just won't be legal. A pragmatic pro-lifer would recognize this, and would come to agreement with Obama: where abortion is legal, but we go about trying to make sure abortions don't happen.

Pragmatism is about the end more than the means. The end would be fetus's being aborted, which is going to be true with or without legal approval. Since it's going to happen regardless, you might as well make for legal routes to deal with the problem, then to make the end illegal and just make the whole situation even uglier. It's just like the drug war, where a pragmatic may not agree that taking drugs is intelligent, but that making drug use illegal is worse than the original "crime."

[bosk1]

bilge

This word is awesome and criminally under-used.  I have to find a way to start working it into conversations.

 

agreed....

if this thread does not take a turn back to useful discussion and away from "bilging" each other, I am going to "bilge" this thread

This.  And if that happens, there is a good chance that some or all of the following may get banned from P/R for continually letting this thread devolve into sometimes-vieled and sometimes open personal attacks rather than discussing the arguments:  livehard, TL, Super Due, NKH.  @ the latter three of you especially, you all have been around here long enough and are intelligent enough posters to know better.  Threads like this where people demonstrate they cannot have a civilized conversation without resorting to personal attacks make me revisit the idea of deleting the P/R section permanently, which I am finding more and more to be a realistic and likely possibility in the future.

[bosk1]

If the moderators had any sense of balance they would ban you for it.

Um, not being an ass or jabbing at mods, but it seems that the average mod around here is much more conservative than liberal. So...I think you're misled. If the mods were as liberal as you claim, your ass would be grass by now. But, you're still here.

@Both of you:  As the resident fascist (thanks for that, Barto ), I'll remind you that I can do just fine deciding who to ban, and you are both pretty high up on the list for posts like that.  I recognize that the discussions in this subforum are likely to get more heated and personal, and so, against my better judgment sometimes, I grant quite a bit more leeway on this subforum than others.  But that leeway is unlimited, and you've both about reached its limits.  73109 is correct that the mods who check this subforum regularly are probably more on the conservative side.  But that has little to do with my mod decisions.  In fact, I think that if you were to take a historical look back at things, I have warned and banned more people from this subforum who are on the "right" side of the aisle than the left.  Your political leanings won't get you into trouble with me.  Your posting style will.  And if you don't like how someone is posting something, report the post and I (or the mods) will take a look.  If you don't report it, and the thread devolves into a big mess by the time one of the mods finds it, we are much more likely to come in and "clean house" by warning/banning large groups of people rather than a person who started it all and whose post was reported before the entire thread went downhill.

[Perpetual Change]

I think maybe it has to do with just the natural difference in  tendencies between liberals and conservatives. When conservatives see something wrong, they're more likely to do the textbook right thing to do and report it. Liberlas are a lot more likely to, well, "be liberal" and just kinda brush off things that don't seem right to them.

[73109]

Or, they are a bit more likely to talk about it and debate it. I can't be the only argumentative sonuvabitch here...right?

[bosk1]

I think maybe it has to do with just the natural difference in  tendencies between liberals and conservatives. When conservatives see something wrong, they're more likely to do the textbook right thing to do and report it. Liberlas are a lot more likely to, well, "be liberal" and just kinda brush off things that don't seem right to them.

I think that's making unfair and untrue generalizations.  Although, if I were going to generalize, I would say that more often than note, those who are more extreme on the left side of the aisle on this forum tend to be jerks, whereas the more extreme on the right side of the aisle on this forum tend to some across as completely insane.  Not sure which is better or worse. 

[73109]

I would actually tend to agree.

Personally, being a dick is being better than a nut job, in my opinion.

[73109]

to be jerks

[c]ome across as completely insane

Conservative bias!!!

[bosk1]

I would actually tend to agree.

Personally, being a dick is being better than a nut job, in my opinion.

Yes and no.  You can stop being a dick if you want to, which means if you are a dick, you are probably being a dick on purpose, which makes you...well, a dick. 

If you are a nut, you're pretty much screwed.

[King Postwhore]

A lot of dicks and screwing going on in this thread.  Sounds like politics to me.

[bosk1]

Or the Patriots locker room.

[King Postwhore]

Or the Patriots locker room.

You leave Tom out of this or else........ before you get bundchened.

[Perpetual Change]

I think that's making unfair and untrue generalizations.  Although, if I were going to generalize, I would say that more often than note, those who are more extreme on the left side of the aisle on this forum tend to be jerks, whereas the more extreme on the right side of the aisle on this forum tend to some across as completely insane.  Not sure which is better or worse.

It was just a generalization, so, yeah. I dunno.

But no-one at this forum is on the extreme left side of the aisle, I don't think. At least not compared to what we have on the right. Here at DTF we have at least one anarcho-capitalist, a poster who yearns for the return of the days of the British common-wealth, and multiple posters who have issue with socialist services like the post office. On the left, we really only have athiests and democrats, both of which seem to still support basic tenants of capitalism like "you have a right to own things." I'm still waiting patiently for the day an actual communist starts posting to balance out our extreme right-wingers.

[73109]

I've been flirting with the ideas of anarcho-communism/collectivism society, if that helps the cause! Just trying to work out the kinks on that one.

And we have 3 anarcho-capitalists...well, three free marketers.

[rumborak]

It seems libertarianism is significantly over-represented on the internet, probably because of its demographic, which seems to be largely teenage/tween males.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Certainly in the context that I was using it in.  I try to look for the right answer, regardless of which douchbag party staked their claim to it first.  I certainly couldn't call myself moderate,  but I'm happy to choose positions from both side of the spectrum as the situation dictates.

I respect that. 

[kirksnosehair]

I think that's making unfair and untrue generalizations.  Although, if I were going to generalize, I would say that more often than note, those who are more extreme on the left side of the aisle on this forum tend to be jerks, whereas the more extreme on the right side of the aisle on this forum tend to some across as completely insane.  Not sure which is better or worse.

It was just a generalization, so, yeah. I dunno.

But no-one at this forum is on the extreme left side of the aisle, I don't think.

I'm a borderline socialist, actually.  So, I'm pretty far to the left.  Further than most, I think.

[antigoon]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

[kirksnosehair]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

[antigoon]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

[kirksnosehair]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

I wasn't accusing you of not living in the real world.  I apologize if it came out that way, that was not my intent at all.  Many of my friends have tried to convince me to vote for fringe candidates, but I just can't bring myself to do it because I feel like it's a wasted vote.  Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments.  I guess my votes, especially over the last 12 or so years have been more geared towards trying to remember that the person we put in office is going to have a lasting influence on society with the supreme court justices they appoint. 

So when I vote for Democrats in the national elections I do so knowing that while they do not necessarily reflect my personal political and social view with 100% acuity, they WILL most likely appoint judges that will vote more closely to the way I think and feel than a Republican will.  So, you know, I go into that voting booth with a clothespin on my nose, do what I've gotta do, then I live with.

[El Barto]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

Take me to your lizard. 

[bosk1]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your seemingly loyal support to a corporatist Democrat party?

"The enemy of my enemy....." 

I live in the real world, where there are two parties in power.  I choose the Democrats because they most closely match my social and economic views.

I also live in the real world, thank you

I'm just saying...I think the events of the last decade have shown us that we need to think outside of the box. Sure, voting third party won't do anything substantial this election cycle; but as more and more people realize that neither party serves the interests of the 99% -- if I may use #OWS parlance -- I think strong showings for third party candidates would at least be a symbolic gesture that we aren't satisfied with the duopoly.

I wasn't accusing you of not living in the real world.  I apologize if it came out that way, that was not my intent at all.  Many of my friends have tried to convince me to vote for fringe candidates, but I just can't bring myself to do it because I feel like it's a wasted vote.  Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments.  I guess my votes, especially over the last 12 or so years have been more geared towards trying to remember that the person we put in office is going to have a lasting influence on society with the supreme court justices they appoint. 

So when I vote for Democrats in the national elections I do so knowing that while they do not necessarily reflect my personal political and social view with 100% acuity, they WILL most likely appoint judges that will vote more closely to the way I think and feel than a Republican will.  So, you know, I go into that voting booth with a clothespin on my nose, do what I've gotta do, then I live with.

If not for the fact that this post as the word "Democrat" in it instead of "Republican," I might have mistakenly thought that I wrote it if someone just sent me the quote without saying who it was from. 

[kirksnosehair]