Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Some white people have basically lost their minds

  1. #16
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I saw Schaeffer's interview the other night. He really does give great insight into the mindset of the evangelical right-wingers.

  2. #17
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    We are seeing lots of white people lose their minds,right on here!
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  3. #18
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,444

    Default

    I love what Schaeffer had to say, and I agree with it 100%.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Jimmy Carter is a fairly respected national figure, and look how the racist/right-wingers turned on him. So, I doubt there's anyone that can stop it from escalating.
    Nah, Republicans -at least this particular brand of mostly Southern conservative nuts- HATE Jimmy Carter. They think he's the biggest joke on the planet. I've honestly never, in my entire time living in the South, heard a positive word about Carter from anyone outside my family. His comments were just like kindling for their crazy- more 'proof' that The Giant Liberal Boogeyman is out to get them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I mentioned a while back that Obama's election was the tipping point for the racists. They see his election as the continued attack on 'their America.' Right now, they're making a last stand for 'their America.' But they aren't smart enough to figure out that they already lost that war years ago. Time only moves forward, not backwards.
    I think its racism and extreme religious fanatics (the Anti-Christ thing)- just like Schaeffer said. And I'm just starting to feel like this is headed to a really ugly place if someone in the GOP or national leadership doesn't pull the brakes.

    I was talking about this with my mom and she had an interesting point to throw into the doomsday scenario: did you know that Rick Perry recently ordered the Texas Rangers (the para-military crew not the baseball team) to go down to the Mexican border and protect it? That's a group of 160 elite police / solider-types that answer to no one but the Gov. of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Far as I know, there aren't organizations like that in other states. And that crazy Governor can snap his fingers and double, triple, the size of the force. Couple that with Perry's recent affinity for succession and who knows what? Its crazy that such a scenario is even within the realm of possibility. As a product of Texas, I have no trouble at all imagining it.

    Don't underestimate Texas for being the spark that lights this crazy fire- I'm frickin' serious. Even if the succession thing doesn't come to pass, the state is chock full of a whole lot of heavily armed people who fit Schaeffer's description to a T. The state is WELL known within liberal political circles for being the epicenter of the most nasty, disturbing, crazy political rumors, smears and activists. It starts in Texas, rapidly becomes engrained in the GOP / crazy Christian platform, and then goes national.

  4. #19
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cali View Post
    I love what Schaeffer had to say, and I agree with it 100%.


    Nah, Republicans -at least this particular brand of mostly Southern conservative nuts- HATE Jimmy Carter. They think he's the biggest joke on the planet. I've honestly never, in my entire time living in the South, heard a positive word about Carter from anyone outside my family. His comments were just like kindling for their crazy- more 'proof' that The Giant Liberal Boogeyman is out to get them.
    But the Carter/Southerners point underscores the real problem here. There isn't a prominent national figure, with universal respect, that can speak out and most people would listen to him or her.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cali View Post
    I think its racism and extreme religious fanatics (the Anti-Christ thing)- just like Schaeffer said. And I'm just starting to feel like this is headed to a really ugly place if someone in the GOP or national leadership doesn't pull the brakes.

    I was talking about this with my mom and she had an interesting point to throw into the doomsday scenario: did you know that Rick Perry recently ordered the Texas Rangers (the para-military crew not the baseball team) to go down to the Mexican border and protect it? That's a group of 160 elite police / solider-types that answer to no one but the Gov. of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Far as I know, there aren't organizations like that in other states. And that crazy Governor can snap his fingers and double, triple, the size of the force. Couple that with Perry's recent affinity for succession and who knows what? Its crazy that such a scenario is even within the realm of possibility. As a product of Texas, I have no trouble at all imagining it.

    Don't underestimate Texas for being the spark that lights this crazy fire- I'm frickin' serious. Even if the succession thing doesn't come to pass, the state is chock full of a whole lot of heavily armed people who fit Schaeffer's description to a T. The state is WELL known within liberal political circles for being the epicenter of the most nasty, disturbing, crazy political rumors, smears and activists. It starts in Texas, rapidly becomes engrained in the GOP / crazy Christian platform, and then goes national.
    I agree that race and religion are the main cause. And when you throw in a shaky economy and fear of another terrorist attack, and we've got the perfect storm for violence to kick off. And I think, at this point, it's not even a matter of 'if it happens,' but 'when it happens.' We've already seen it begin with the Holocaust Museum shooting and Tiller's murder. The people on the far-right always seem to think they have a free pass for violence when a Democrat is president.

    And nothing about Texas shocks me. And most of the GOP leaders either agree with the nutjob racists or they're just too scared to speak up, because Boss Hog Rush would trash them.

  5. #20
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    51,944

    Default

    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  6. #21
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cali View Post
    I think its racism and extreme religious fanatics (the Anti-Christ thing)- just like Schaeffer said. And I'm just starting to feel like this is headed to a really ugly place if someone in the GOP or national leadership doesn't pull the brakes.
    It's pretty telling that today Fox tried to echo Nancy Pelosi's statements yesterday about possible violence.

  7. #22
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,704

    Default

    Jane Hamsher posted an interesting idea today on HuffPo. That the dems are now using the teabaggers as a target to distract the base from the public option sell out.

    I find it interesting, as the hysteria around these wingnuts has grown to ridiculous proportions, with so much coverage of something that isn't that large from an objective point of view. These protests aren't very large (as all the coverage and disputing of the protests size has shown), or even violent. Just high volume and then talked about nonstop by the media. We've always had them, as many people know.

    I know that some believe only the Bush Admin would do something like manipulate the media coverage for propaganda purposes, but I don't. I know any administration can and frequently does do it, to keep the public from focusing on important issues.

    Here's Hamsher's piece:

    Jane Hamsher: New DNC Obama Ad: Get "Fired Up" and "Ready To Go" About No Public Option

    President Obama has been desperate to ditch the public option for weeks. Max Baucus did the job he thought he was supposed to do -- memorialize the deals that the White House cut with health care industry stakeholders. He left it to the White House to sell it, and now they have to.

    But every time they tried to jettison the public option through surrogates like Kathleen Sebelius or "senior White House officials" speaking anonymously to media outlets, the base went haywire and Obama's poll numbers started tanking.

    Well, now that Baucus has delivered his stenography, gotta get the base on board with the "goody bag" of benefits -- which basically means whatever was left over after Rahm Emanuel got done auctioning off the rest to the medical industrial complex.


    So the new DNC ad fires up the "base" by trying to rally them around hatred of teabaggers.

    Because hatred of teabaggers will, I guess, mean that nobody notices that Obama makes no mention of a public option in the ad:

    It's meant to primarily signal our most ardent supporters and the base of the Democratic Party that we are with you -- and that we need you -- to get this done and accomplish the other big things this president has set out to do," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse said.
    Well, now there's the rub. Because it turns out that 44% of Democrats strongly support health care reform with a public option, but that figure drops to 12% without one. So passing the Baucus bill means stabbing the base and destroying 2010 turnout for the midterms, which is pretty much what NAFTA did in 1994 -- when there was a 54 seat swing to the Republicans.
    Thank Rahm Emanuel for that one, too.

    It looks like Obama's speech in College Park, Maryland the other day on health care also served as a spectacular photo-op, allowing the DNC to flood the air waves with "fired up, ready to go!" ads supporting generic health care reform.

    I think they left out one key moment of the Maryland event.

    That's the one where the crowd openly boos the Baucus bill.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  8. #23
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    Jane Hamsher posted an interesting idea today on HuffPo. That the dems are now using the teabaggers as a target to distract the base from the public option sell out.

    I find it interesting, as the hysteria around these wingnuts has grown to ridiculous proportions, with so much coverage of something that isn't that large from an objective point of view. These protests aren't very large (as all the coverage and disputing of the protests size has shown), or even violent. Just high volume and then talked about nonstop by the media. We've always had them, as many people know.

    I know that some believe only the Bush Admin would do something like manipulate the media coverage for propaganda purposes, but I don't. I know any administration can and frequently does do it, to keep the public from focusing on important issues.
    I don't see any specific manipulation by the Obama Admin. And it's certainly not what Hamsher's piece is about since she's just noting that the new ad pushed by the Obama Admin is the new tactic in an ongoing strategy jettison the public option.

    I think what you're noticing is more about how the corporate media in general operates. Or Beltway journalism. Talking about what's going on over at Fox News and right-wing movements is acceptable. It fits into what's called the "sphere of legitimate debate." Discussing Blackwater and how the Obama administration is continuing their contracts or how the US would greatly benefit by having a single-payer system is shoved into the "sphere of deviance," which is why you only find it being covered widely on the net or by Jeremy Scahill.
    1.) The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain. They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space. (It doesn’t, but they think so.) Hallin: “This is the region of electoral contests and legislative debates, of issues recognized as such by the major established actors of the American political process.”

    Here the two-party system reigns, and the news agenda is what the people in power are likely to have on their agenda. Perhaps the purest expression of this sphere is Washington Week on PBS, where journalists discuss what the two-party system defines as “the issues.” Objectivity and balance are “the supreme journalistic virtues” for the panelists on Washington Week because when there is legitimate debate it’s hard to know where the truth lies. There are risks in saying that truth lies with one faction in the debate, as against another— even when it does. He said, she said journalism is like the bad seed of this sphere, but also a logical outcome of it.

    2. )
    The sphere of consensus is the “motherhood and apple pie” of politics, the things on which everyone is thought to agree. Propositions that are seen as uncontroversial to the point of boring, true to the point of self-evident, or so widely-held that they’re almost universal lie within this sphere. Here, Hallin writes, “journalists do not feel compelled either to present opposing views or to remain disinterested observers.” (Which means that anyone whose basic views lie outside the sphere of consensus will experience the press not just as biased but savagely so.)

    Consensus in American politics begins, of course, with the United States Constitution, but it includes other propositions too, like “Lincoln was a great president,” and “it doesn’t matter where you come from, you can succeed in America.” Whereas journalists equate ideology with the clash of programs and parties in the debate sphere, academics know that the consensus or background sphere is almost pure ideology: the American creed.

    3.)
    In the sphere of deviance we find “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.” As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn’t the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible. The press “plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda” the deviant view, says Hallin. It “marks out and defends the limits of acceptable political conduct.”

    Anyone whose views lie within the sphere of deviance—as defined by journalists—will experience the press as an opponent in the struggle for recognition. If you don’t think separation of church and state is such a good idea; if you do think a single payer system is the way to go; if you dissent from the “lockstep behavior of both major American political parties when it comes to Israel” (Glenn Greenwald) chances are you will never find your views reflected in the news. It’s not that there’s a one-sided debate; there’s no debate.


    Complications to keep in mind.


    The three spheres are not really separate; they create one another, like the public and private do. The boundaries between regions are semi-porous and impermanent. Things can move out of one sphere and into another—that’s what political and cultural change is, if you think about it—but when they do shift there is often no announcement. One day David Brody of Christian Broadcasting Network shows up on Meet the Press, but Amy Goodman of Democracy Now never does.

    This can be confusing. Of course, the producers of Meet the Press could say in a press release, “We decided that Pat Robertson’s CBN is now to be placed within the sphere of legitimate debate because… ” but then they would have to complete the “because” in a plausible way and very often they cannot. (“Amy Goodman, we decided, does not qualify for this show because…”) This gap between what journalists actually do as they arrange the scene of politics, and the portion they can explain or defend publicly—the difference between making news and making sense—is responsible for a lot of the anger and bad feeling projected at the political press by various constituencies that notice these moves and question them.

    Within the sphere of legitimate debate there is some variance. Journalists behave differently if the issue is closer to the doughnut hole than they do when it is nearer the edge. The closer they think they are to the unquestioned core of consensus, the more plausible it is to present a single view as the only view, which is a variant on the old saw about American foreign policy: “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” (Atrios: “I’ve long noticed a tendency of the American press to take the side of official US policy when covering foreign affairs.”)

    Another complication: Journalists aren’t the only actors here. Elections have a great deal to do with what gets entered into legitimate debate. Candidates—especially candidates for president—can legitimize an issue just by talking about it. Political parties can expand their agenda, and journalists will cover that. Powerful and visible people can start questioning a consensus belief and remove it from the “everyone agrees” category. And of course public opinion and social behavior do change over time.

    [...]

    “Echo chamber” or counter-sphere?

    Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.

    In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.

    Which is how I got to my three word formlua for understanding the Internet’s effects in politics and media: “audience atomization overcome.”
    PressThink: Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press

  9. #24
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    I don't see any specific manipulation by the Obama Admin. And it's certainly not what Hamsher's piece is about since she's just noting that the new ad pushed by the Obama Admin is the new tactic to jettison the public option.

    I was working her thoughts into my own, and probably painting with a broad brush, but I think she is pretty clear on the DNC using the feelings towards teabaggers to distract from the fact that public option it isn't mentioned in the new ad:

    So the new DNC ad fires up the "base" by trying to rally them around hatred of teabaggers. Because hatred of teabaggers will, I guess, mean that nobody notices that Obama makes no mention of a public option in the ad.

    I took her thought there, worked into my own of how the public is manipulated by media coverage as in your posted piece.

    Ads are part of the media message. Many people never look any deeper at an issue than on the ads they see. That and speeches are the entire sum of information for them. Pol gives a good speech, or airs a good ad, and they're sold.

    But I feel and have long felt, the admin (not just this one) and our intelligence community play a part in the media and message contol. That, working in combination with the way our media operates as noted in the piece you've posted- and the internet is now a part of it, it's an execellent fast way to get a manipulated story out there, keeps people distracted and not focused on real issues.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; September 18th, 2009 at 08:44 PM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #25
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    woo.. fired up over being lied to.. yeah, that'll work

    Obama is fucking tone deaf.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  11. #26
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    I was working her thoughts into my own, and probably painting with a broad brush, but I think she is pretty clear on the DNC using the feelings towards teabaggers to distract from the fact that public option it isn't mentioned in the new ad:

    So the new DNC ad fires up the "base" by trying to rally them around hatred of teabaggers. Because hatred of teabaggers will, I guess, mean that nobody notices that Obama makes no mention of a public option in the ad.
    I took her thought there, worked into my own of how the public is manipulated by media coverage as in your posted piece.

    Ads are part of the media message. Many people never look any deeper at an issue than on the ads they see. That and speeches are the entire sum of information for them. Pol gives a good speech, or airs a good ad, and they're sold.

    But I feel and have long felt, the admin (not just this one) and our intelligence community play a part in the media and message contol. That, working in combination with the way our media operates as noted in the piece you've posted- and the internet is now a part of it, it's an execellent fast way to get a manipulated story out there, keeps people distracted and not focused on real issues.
    Well, I consider ads to be a different segment of the media. I suppose it's a media-is versus a media-are argument. I don't watch that much tv or listen to much conservative radio, so I don't see a whole lot of them unless I specifically go out of my way to see them. I have ad-block plus on my firefox, so I don't see many on the web either.

    I just can't give the DNC credit for the media coverage of teabaggers. Because 1) they don't seem to excel in media strategies like the GOP and 2) the corporate/Beltway media has been taking their talking points from Drudge, Rush and Fox News for quite a while now. The media following the teabaggers is just another meme from that end. And while, yes, they are small compared to the protests for the Iraq War and other protests well known in history, if you live in a Red State, then you've heard plenty of other people voice solidarity with these people that don't show up to protest.

    I tend to think of the MSM as the corporate/Beltway media. Bush Admin's Pentagon plants aside, I think the corporate media's actions make more sense from a corporate, status quo perspective than a US intelligence one.

  12. #27
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    I just can't give the DNC credit for the media coverage of teabaggers. Because 1) they don't seem to excel in media strategies like the GOP and 2) the corporate/Beltway media has been taking their talking points from Drudge, Rush and Fox News for quite a while now. The media following the teabaggers is just another meme from that end. And while, yes, they are small compared to the protests for the Iraq War and other protests well known in history, if you live in a Red State, then you've heard plenty of other people voice solidarity with these people that don't show up to protest.
    I know what you mean about dems and poor media strategy, absolutely. They never have done it as well, and it's been a large problem for them.

    But it's been on my mind over the past couple of days, when I saw Carter speak on this, part of me went- 'hey here's an ideal way to to get a message out there with strong coverage- he's not in office, he can say what we want to say, and then the WH can distance itself in a statement.' It's a pretty old, and frequently used tactic, and it seems (to me) to have played out that way.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  13. #28
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    I don't know. It seems like Carter is just a thorn in almost every recent administration at one point or another. He seems more willing to speak his mind or engage in all sorts of activism that you don't see in Bush Sr or in the late Jerry Ford. Bill tries not to make too much of a ripple because his wife was in the Senate, and we all know W. Bush is too lazy to do anything. Carter is almost left to go rogue by default.

  14. #29
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,468

    Default

    There was an interesting commentary on this from some news source which I will try to find.

    Basically, "those that are unhappy with Obama" are now playing the 'reverse racism' card in full force.

    They perceive themselves as being "true minorities" now that a black man is in the white house, so they'll play all their stupid little woe is me reverse racism games. That's why you see guys like glen beck and others crying that Obama is a racist. And so on.

  15. #30
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Al Punto Versus Fox News Sunday

    By: emptywheel Friday September 18, 2009 11:28 am

    As you may have heard, President Obama is going to appear on five Sunday shows this Sunday (rumor has it that McCain is despondent to learn that he hasn't actually been President for the last eight months).

    That, by itself, is notable. But there's another notable detail about Obama's Sunday blitz. Here are the five shows on which Obama will appear:
    • CBS' Face the Nation
    • NBC's Meet the Press
    • ABC's This Week
    • CNN's State of the Union
    • Univision's Al Punto
    Note the last one: instead of rounding out the top five with Fox News Sunday, Obama is appearing on Univision's Sunday show, Al Punto.

    Now, this not the first time that Presidents have appeared on Univision: Clinton appeared on Univision five times, W was on six times, and Obama has done a couple of interviews with Univision as well.

    But Obama is the first President who has appeared on Al Punto (the show started in September 2007, at the same time as Univision was hosting a Presidential debate) [correction: Obama has been on before].

    As such, it seems to me, it ought to focus some attention on Al Punto's role in the Sunday line-up. And, as it turns out, the White House can justify blowing off Fox for Univision not just to reach out to Latinos rather than white racists. According to Univision's corporate communications, Al Punto (531,000) does better than FNS (417,000) in the all-important 18-49 demographic (and has done so for the last 10 months), and it often beats CBS' Face the Nation in that demo as well.

    The white racists are in a tizzy crying that Obama is unfair in ignoring Fox.
    [Joe "You Lie!"] Wilson, who was reprimanded this week by the House for his outburst at Obama last week, said that by excluding Fox, the president was not being fair.

    “If people are going to be on the Sunday talk shows, they should be on all of them,” Wilson said.

    Wilson, incidentally, appeared on “Fox News Sunday” last week, but not on any of the other Sunday shows.

    Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told The Hill that Obama has “handpicked” his audience.

    “I think that Fox News would ask some realistic questions that members of Congress are asked and the American public is aaaasking. And he’s the one who’s choosing not to take part in that,” Sessions said on Wednesday.
    But what's really going on is that Obama has chosen to appear on the more popular show. Of course, as it turns out, Latino news is more popular among key demographics than white racist news, at least on Sunday shows. Which might explain why people like Joe Wilson are so upset.
    Emptywheel » Al Punto Versus Fox News Sunday

    Interesting. I didn't realize Obama was appearing on Univision on Sunday.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 5th, 2008, 06:46 PM
  2. Baby Boomer women have lost their collective minds
    By ingi in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 14th, 2008, 01:24 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 03:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •