Sunday, November 9, 2008

Time To Take The White People’s Guns!

Heh...hat tip to my college buddy Jeff, who is white, and to Ken Layne of Wonkette, who is white too ;) I'm disclosing their race so that you shell shocked "you're playing the race card" freaks don't invade my comment section. White guys shared the video and get the humor, so it's okay, right?


When you see over the top posts like this the day after such an historic election where the margin of victory was clear (a 7 point lead in the popular vote, one the hugest electoral victories ever, and a Congress that is now a nice dark blue) it really makes you wonder about some people.

BTW, I'm not saying this ill conceived response to the election was made because the president-elect is black.

I honestly have no idea why it was likened to Pearl Harbor by its title, but, whatever the reasoning, it's pure hyperbole. And hyperbole masked as free speech is an American right, so have at it.

To the creators of this video, thanks for making a funny short, and, since I've got a right to free speech too, I can reply by using it.

Because really, is the fact that he's black THAT serious? I'm glad Obama's race wasn't for 53% of the voters on November 4th.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at

Original link: Get Your War On: New World Order

Sphere: Related Content


  1. If you'd taken the time to read one post below the one you cite, you'd have your reasons why I posted a distress signal;

    Despite the many reasons to not elect Obama – the racist Reverend Wright, his views on the U.S. Constitution and socialism, the bizarre “civilian national security force” idea to name only a few specifically – he likely will be elected today.

    Many Republicans seem to be voting against Obama rather than for McCain, who comes off as the lesser of two evils, which isn’t enough. Some of that is no doubt due to the grossly unbalanced coverage he’s received while Obama has in relative terms had a free ride; it's no surprise.

    Looking to North Korea, where Obama is a complete novice, the probably-recovering-from-a-stroke Kim Jong-il will favor a Democrat over McCain, as it will ensure the better-than-free-ride he’s been enjoying will continue. With few notable exceptions, our enemies will welcome Obama.

    You can ignore these serious issues and engage in cheap ad hominem - as I see you have - but the issues are still there.

  2. Funny you've allowed no comments on your blog, but I engage in "cheap ad hominem" attacks.

    Nah, dude. I saw your post. The post is silly and without merit. As for the points you make in the lead up to the election, quite a few people have addressed the bullshit you're slinging and 53% of the people who chose to vote simply don't buy it.

    I chose to reply to you posting a picture of an upside down American flag and tying Obama's victory to Pearl Harbor. Again, that's ridiculous.

  3. The first half of your first sentence above is factually incorrect on the face; I *do* allow comments on my blog, and in fact there are over 5,000, I just didn't allow comments on that post. It's akin to taking the phone off the hook for awhile. The second half the sentence in question doesn't logically follow the first half, but is true enough on its own.

    If one knows what an upside down flag means (especially in regard to property), and taken in context of the election, it should be apparent that this is no literal comparison to Pearl Harbor, which of course would be nonsensical, but of a terrible things happening to our country. You kind of have to want to not get it.

    There is nothing that can be debunked about Rev. Wright, the transcript concerning the "flawed" (his words) U.S. Constitution, or even the bizarre “civilian national security force” idea. Video and his own words speak quite clearly for the record on those issue.

    Enjoy the next couple of years, and I sincerely mean that. Because there will be a backlash after that.

  4. My sentence is dead on. You don't allow comments on the blog I linked to. On other sections on the your tome to insanity you do. "Blog" means both the blog and its contents. Definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster: a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site. So sorry to break up your game of sentence parsing but, unfortunately for you, my vocabulary is pretty good and that means I use secondary and tertiary meanings form time to time too. Again, I was dead on with what I wrote. The only thing you've proven is you need a date with a dictionary and maybe a few modern English vocabulary lessons.

    Speaking of definitions, you said what the upside down flag means on your blog. I accept that definition and, thus, I know what your image of an upside down flag represents. In the context in which you use it, again, it's complete hyperbole. Yes, I get that you're comparing it to something terrible happening to our country. To that end, you're using a quote which is connected to Pearl Harbor and WWII.

    I "get" it. I don't agree with it.

    As to the Constitution, have you actually studied the Constitution and the questions it raises? I have. It's a document written by humans, not infallible gods. In many cases, people can read the same passage and the same documents and come to very different interpretations of what it means. Obama, unlike yourself, actually has done both and more. He's studied it because Con Law is required at all ABA-approved law schools, including one of the best, Harvard Law. Also, he's taught the Constitution and has written about it.

    I'll trust him, with the checks of the Congress (which yes, is a lovely blue now but still is full of people I hope will challenge him if he needs to be challenged) working with him and the U.S. Supreme Court watching over him, than the likes of you. You're basically taking quotes out of context and lamenting the end of days.

    I, in contrast, was lamenting when the U.S. "elected" a former party boy as president. If you've not noticed, over the last 8 years "terrible things" have already happened to our country. Even then, however, I had hope that the voters would wake up. It's taken 8 long years and tons of mishaps, but they have. Now, how long will it take for them to be lulled back into a state where they believe that who leads doesn't matter or that their vote doesn't count?

    The very institutions that our country was involved in helping to create, like the U.N., have basically been dismissed and ignored by him and his administration when they can't get their way. That has led us into one war we should have never started. Having no knowledge of the culture, using faulty intelligence and outright lies they sold the American public a song and dance about the necessity of going into Iraq. It's knocked the balance of power in the region off balance and Iran is now surging forward to fill that power void.

    That's only one issue. On the domestic front jobs are being lost as a quickstep pace and even more Americans than when I left the country over 8 years ago don't have access to decent health care.

    You're right. In two years there will be elections and, again, the voters will be able to respond to how they've been governed. There is always a backlash to some degree, duh.

    You're steeped in the politics of fear, and that's a shame. However, that's the status quo of the ideas you appear to sincerely believe and represent.

  5. You're still off. A "blog" can refer to the contents of a weblog, as in a collection of entries, but a single entry in a blog is still called a "post," and not a "blog" itself. That single post does not allow comments; the blog and about 1,700 other posts do allow comments. You could refer to a post as a "blog" if it were a one-post blog, but that is not the case. No matter how you dice it, to say my "blog" doesn't allow comments is just factually wrong. This is one reason why definitions matter.

    If you got it that I was not actually referring to Pearl Harbor, then you would not have wondered in the post why I was referring to Pearl Harbor. Can't have it both ways. Unless you were merely engaging in hyperbole, but of course you wouldn't do that while accusing me of same.

    You ask if I've studied the Constitution, but then answer your own question (incorrectly). I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I do know my around the document. I'm not taking his quotes out of context; it's an entire transcript in this particular case, so nothing is parsed.

    I also wasn't defending Bush so don't know why that strawman was brought into the mix. In fact my blog is very critical of Bush.

    Speaking out against someone who represents a far left agenda that is against my beliefs is hardly "the politics of fear." Ironic that you repeatedly accuse others of hyperbole.

  6. ...yawn...

    The definition, as I use it, is correct. If you want a point for being "right" then take it because that's not really what this comment back and forth is about and you know it.

    No, I wonder why you're invoking the image of Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt's speech which ushered the USA into a broad and sweeping world war. One, in which many Americans lost their lives or were hurt, including people in my own family and probably in yours too. I KNOW what you were invoking, so no, I'm not having it both ways.

    I simply wanted more information on your point of view as to why it was such an infamous date. My question is why? Outside of still harping on Rev. Wright which is shows how out of touch you are with the black community. There are many that hold conspiratorial views about the US government. You've also linked to some YouTube video where he talks about a civilian security force. That video has all of a few seconds taken out of a longer speech. It's OUT OF CONTEXT.

    As to the Constitution, you link to something he said in 2001 on the Constitution, I've not seen anything else.

    If you read it, he's not saying that the Warren Court ought to have been involved in redistributing wealth. He's saying that people who call the Warren Court "radical" are, oh, let me say it, engaging in hyperbole.

    They're taking their analysis too far. The Warren Court was not a radical court because his sense of radical is if they had broken "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." That means he doesn't agree with that definition of the Warren Court. To him, they weren't a radical court. Had they gone further they would have been radical.

    Maybe go and read something a bit more current, like his chapter in The Audacity of Hope in which he analyzes the Constitution in chapter three. Then come back and lets discuss his views on wealth redistribution.

    The quote you're linking to is taken out of context of the larger discussion of the history of the Constitution and had you studied it, you'd know that. If you had ever bothered to study the Constitution and its legislative history in depth rather than knowing your way "around the document" you'd read his quote and you would know exactly what was talking about. Unfortunately, you don't know because you've not studied it and you're slinging around untruths. First on your reading list, is The Brethren by Bob Woodward first published in 1979. It gives a nonfiction account of the Warren Court.

    I'm not accusing "others" of hyperbole. I'm accusing YOU of hyperbole. It's hyperbole which I see now is simply hinged in what you don't know. That's okay. I don't know everything either but no one does.

    I'm talking about Bush because you claim that something "terrible" will happen to our country. I cited some reasons why something terrible has ALREADY happened to our country and I'm glad you agree with me on that.

    Again, maybe stick your nose in some books rather than websites that take whole passages of what he's said out of context and come back when you actually know what the man is talking about because on the Constitution the entirety of that quote is framed in a way that makes it seem as if he's arguing for radicalism in the Court.

    You actually have to know what his agenda is before you attack it.

  7. I think your misuse of this term, and refusal to admit it, is indicative of the larger issue I’m seeing here. It borders of bizarre.

    Moving on, in your post you wondered why I used the Roosevelt line, then said you “get” it in a comment, now wonder again. If you “get” it, why are you asking? If you read what I wrote, why are you asking, again? For the final time, no, I was not invoking Peal Harbor, as I have stated above, I assumed the context of the election would make it clear for most people. Well, most people probably would get it, I suppose.

    My being in touch with the black community, or not, is completely irrelevant; Obama’s going to that church for 20 years listening message, and implicitly accepting it by continuing to attend, is the issue. Obviously lying about not knowing Wright’s agenda is also part of that. I’ve seen the rest of the crazy civilian security forces speech, and it is not out of context. Because Obama said strange things about the Constitution in 2001 does not lessen their impact, unless he were to explicitly correct the record, which he has not. His tax plan is wealth redistribution. All of these things are very, very relevant to many Americans, no matter how out of hand you dismiss them.

    Again, you’ll not find defending Bush. Bring him up is, however, still a strawman.

    Maybe I should read some books, huh? Listen, I see from your profile that you’ve recently earned your grad degree, and that’s great. Well I got mine awhile back and was happy to leave behind the borderline-condescending rhetoric of newly degreed folks who’re feeling a little bit superior. What’s ironic in this is that I read (and write, at times) for hours a day at my job, and rarely have time to spend reading on the net.

    I know what his agenda is; I reject most if it.

    And now it’s time to tend to my son. . .

  8. Wow. Who is being condescending now?

    You're all riled up because you know that interpretation of your quote never crossed your mind because you haven't studied the topic in-depth enough to even know what he was talking about.

    I earned my law degree quite awhile ago. What I earned recently was my international studies degree and the international studies curriculum never touched US Con Law. However, I did TA an international public law course, just in case you want to snipe that I'm out of touch. You just clowned yourself for making a sweeping assumption that I'm fresh out of school.

    Since you're so established and wise don't you know that writing with anger and on assumptions is a bad idea? I have another suggestion for you, some chamomile tea. It's very soothing and relaxing and it sounds like you need it.

    Yes, I suggest you read some books because the context of the quote is completely wrong and that's why no one cares about it. I don't care if you read the Internet or not. However, clearly you do read the net. That's part of the problem. In not reading books on the subject that you're throwing out there as a harbinger of doom for the USA as we know it and quoting some webpage, which takes a 2001 quote completely out of context and frames it as Obama's radical and not-so-hidden agenda, you and the person who wrote that are just misinformed.

    You very well might write all day, but I still highly suggest trying some reading too. Again, The Brethren is recommended by law scholars because you learn about the inner workings of the Warren Court.

    You did invoke Pearl Harbor because you used a quote intrinsically tied to Pearl Harbor. When I hear that quote I think of Roosevelt's speech. And, if I choose to use that quote, I know that I'm invoking the image of a very traumatic event happening to the USA. As such, I would use that quote to describe the horror that was 9/11. However, I wouldn't use that quote to describe an election where the victor took it with 53% of the popular vote, a landslide in the electoral college vote and also stacked the Congress firmly in his favor. I'll just assume, like the arguments you rest your beliefs on, that you take things out of context on a regular basis.

    As for the black community, it's not worth my time to even get into it.

    As for the Constitution, I hit it dead on and you're just annoyed. Obama didn't say "strange things". To sum it up in one very short sentence: He said the interpretation that the Warren Court was a radical court isn't true and then he explained why he thought it wasn't true.

    Taxes ARE wealth redistribution and it's been a part of American history pretty much since the beginning. That too I studied as my alma mater has a special focus in taxation for those who want it. I took it and I know it and my resume attests to the fact that I also did time at one of the big investment banks (and it was one that survived this recent economic crisis and actually stepped up to buy during it.)

    You talk about "taking the phone of the hook" but then you wander onto my blog engaging in a pretty predictable right-wing song and dance. As a friend said to me, talking the phone off the hook invokes trying to bring a level of peace and quiet to things.

    What you did was much, much different. And I'll quote him, "But what he did was call everyone on his phone list, told them to "fuck off," and turned off his phone."

    You posted a provocative blog, you shut off comments and now you're pissed that the people reading it are commenting the the only way they can.

    Now let's see where we are on this list of the steps of the futility of even trying to have a discussion with extreme right wingers:

    "- Right winger says something completely out of line
    - Progressive calls him on it
    - Right winger distracts by concentrating on semantics (i.e., the definition of "blog")
    - Right winger also tries to show off what little knowledge he has (repeating college rhetoric class terms--he thinks that if he can define what your logical fallacy is, his logical fallacies are untouchable). In my case, it's usually been someone who has never had a deep thought until he has read Ayn Rand and suddenly thinks he's an intellectual.
    - Progressive actually goes through the research to dig up quotes and facts to back up her point
    - Right winger brushes it all off and makes another point without the evidence to back it up
    - Progressive works hard to bring up more quotes and facts
    - Right winger brushes it off, usually by saying, "Hogwash," or claiming he doesn't have time to waste reading all those books you quote
    - By this time, the name calling starts with the right winger, using "socialist," "liberal" and other red-baiting McCarthyite terms.
    - Progressive realizes she is wasting her time and goes into a futile state of depression at the state of humanity"

    There is definitely some sarcasm there and some steps have been reduced in the process here, but I'm pretty much at the end. I'm not depressed, however.

    I'll just say next time you want to basically start some shit, be ready to take some being flung right back at you.

    With that said, I'm through with you.

  9. You must realize that one could just as easily replace “Left” with “Right” in your argument timeline, and that it actually depends on the person, not the ideology. At the same time, you dismiss the most important elements of why Obama is a problem with a single dismissive sentence. This – and please check the dictionary – is called hypocrisy.

    There is something very telling about someone, who, after misunderstanding the dictionary (i.e. blog), can’t admit they misused a single word, which I see you still insist on misusing. I think that is the same reason that you would jump a string of (wrong) conclusions, including that your opponent could never have imagined what you know, or even that I’m angry, and even what I have and haven’t read. The knee-jerk claiming you “get it” (how could you not, right?) yet repeatedly showing you don’t. As you claim to have finished grad school some time ago, yet the know-it-all jargon of the newly degreed (and pointing to being a TA!) still plays strongly, this points to another reason, which explains the refusal above; immaturity.

    And I prefer black tea.

  10. I ceded the "blog" issue a reply or so ago. I said, take it. But I understand it as I wrote it and I'll continue to use it that way. It's not really not the issue, now is it? Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, you've just not learned that it's okay to agree to disagree on the minor issues. I'd say that my use of the term "blog" is a minor issue.

    So it's funny that you harp on it over and over. Because, yeah, that's key to a discussion on Obama and the era of rampant socialism he'll usher in, which, again, is based on an ignorant misreading of a quote.

    Interesting that you've not touched the crux of your own argument since I blew it up. So now it's just trolling in the comment section. Nice.

    But, unlike yourself, at least if I go on the attack, I'll allow for comments.

    You've completely ditched your ill informed argument and are attacking. Yeah, it's immature for me to point out that you're 100% wrong about when I graduated and, again, running off on some erroneous assumption. It's completely immature for me to mention that taxation IS wealth redistribution. It's immature for me to also tell you that you simply don't know what you're talking about in the context of that quote you were so confidently waving in my virtual face.

    Let's bring a logician into this, Occam's Razor: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. I've given you a very simple explanation for what Obama meant in that 2001 quote. I say it because I know that there is a debate among Con Law scholars whether the Warren Court was or wasn't radical.

    Is it more likely that a Con law professor who is in politics is discussing his view on that very simple issue? Or is it more likely that he was revealing his evil socialist plan to have a radical Supreme Court and his evil plans to engineer a socialist society?

    Also, as a history making Harvard Law grad, being editor of the law review is HUGE, don't you think he'd just MOVE to a socialist country if that's what he wanted?

    Yeah, if I'm immature. You're right there with me and, on top of that, you're ignorant too.

    Have a nice evening and thanks for the entertainment.

  11. Come now, our new "post-racial" president-elect (whose grandmother was, by his own words, a "typical white person") does not want to take guns away from whitie!

    He wants to take guns away from all people... who bothered to obey the law and fill out federal form 4473.

    Some brothers don't fill out that form when they acquire their guns. THEY have no worries -- they just have to keep their pants up as the President-elect suggested (probably because it's hard for your pants to hold the holstered gun up properly unless the belt is tightened around your waist).

  12. Expat, I noticed that you referenced President-elect Obama's election results (winning 53% of the popular vote) as a validation of his views. I'm curious, what if Obama had won nearly 59% of the popular vote, would you have expected all conservatives just to give up their ideology, admit their mistakes & quietly slink away as their ideas had been invalidated?

    Just curious...,_1984

    Also, I'm not certain that Occam's Razor is pertinent in this instance as given what little we do know about Obama's positions & his associates...all things being equal the jury is still out. A single out of context comment isn't in question, rather it is several curious comments that give some pause. I think in the very near future Occam will have his say & we'll have a much clearer picture of what to expect from the new president...I won't assign direct motive just yet, although I'm certainly suspicious.

  13. James ---

    Right, I heard about Obama and the gun issue. I don't even know enough about it to say much. But I do know that there, indeed, was a rush to stock up on guns prior to the election and this I heard from a black woman who actually is a gun enthusiast, sooooooooooooooooo I think the "brothas" snipe is a bit unnecessary.

    What's the hostility about? You think because I am an Obama supporter that I'll be lockstep in support on whatever his position on guns might be? Also, why automatically swoop in as a comment troll?

    I don't know enough about what he's proposing to talk much about it. So can you tell me what the issues are or will you just stay in comment troll mode?

    Whatever the proposal is, all gun enthusiasts are in the same boat, and all criminals are not in that boat. The problem with gun laws is exactly that, they don't reach the people who are the real problem because those people don't follow the law.

    The right to bear arms is an American right, and to that end I hope gun enthusiasts do their damnedest to preserve the right that's so dear to them. Fight the new administration when the laws everyone is dreading goes to Congress. I hope between the very powerful NRA and the fact that he's not like prior presidents (or, at least, says he's not) that he'll be more flexible than everyone thinks.

    That is me leaping onto a sliver of faith. But also, the fact is that right now the Dems do not have that filibuster-proof Senate they were seeking and I don't think they'll get it.

    Take the title up with the guys who made the video, because what they're making fun of is the paranoia that the sky is going to fall in now that Obama is president. If you watch it, you'll see that they're playing on the paranoia some people had and still have.

    So, should you reply, try for civil. Thanks.

  14. bodhi1971 ---

    No, you're misreading my point. My point to Richardson is that a 53% popular vote is pretty good and, thus, the whole "A Date Which Will Live in Infamy" stuff is a bit much. This isn't Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City or 9/11. For me, it's highly disrespectful of the Americans who have suffered through terrible things to go down that road.

    Anyway, I certainly don't expect anyone to switch their views. I would like, however, for people to to be civil. Posting an upside down flag and likening it to a huge national tragedy is too much. It's like waving a big middle finger to everyone in the playground and stomping off.

    There are a good number of people who didn't support Obama, at this point, 46% or so. They aren't pleased he's the president elect. So linking to Ronald Regan's 1984 victory is a bit off point. And, no, in spite of that high margin I recall my mother being as anti-Regan as ever ;) Hold on to your suspicions and be ready to act should they appear to be coming to pass.

    I'd just not like distorted quotes to be the basis of anyone's argument.

    If you too go over the deep end with paranoid projections of doom in the face of a very firm majority, I'd be on your case too.

    With that said, I think we're square. Yes?

  15. Now it seems that those who don’t agree with Jane are trolling? That’s a pretty convenient label to toss around.

    The blog terminology issue would normally be a completely inconsequential matter. But here it demonstrates the larger issue; you swooped in with absolute certainty that you’d squashed one whom you considered ignorant. But actually didn’t. It’s a pattern.

    I've given you a very simple explanation for what Obama meant in that 2001 quote.

    Since you brought Occam's Razor into it, the simplest explanation would be he meant exactly what he said. He was after all editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    My point to Richardson is that a 53% popular vote is pretty good and, thus, the whole "A Date Which Will Live in Infamy" stuff is a bit much.

    A “bit much” categorized in “Idiot Writers,” and you ask others for civility?

    Take the title up with the guys who made the video. . .

    Exactly, how could anyone possibly misinterpret that post title? Practically impossible.

    That much hypocrisy should have caused you a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.


  16. Richardson...

    Um, I said you were trolling and I said James was trolling.

    I said you were a troll because, at this point, it's a tit for tat snipe fest where you come in to hit me on issues like usage of the term "blog" or that I'm immature or a hypocrite.

    I mentioned trolling in my reply to James because his tone was not intended to inspire a discussion but to piss me off and, on that, I say the mission failed. I actually empathize with the gun advocates to a certain degree because I'm firmly against rights for anyone being rolled back. I also understand that gun laws miss the very people they usually target: criminals. Criminals don't work with in a legal framework, so gun control seems to hit the wrong targets. I get that. However, I don't know much more about the issue and that I can admit.

    But on the Constitution, that I've got some knowledge of. You are ignorant on the Constitutional issue that you were pushing so hard. The issue is simply one of definition. You didn't know that. You cited a paragraph of Obama's words because you were so sure he was advocating racial courts and socialism that you ran with it. That was an extreme and wrong interpretation.

    On the "blog" issue you might not be ignorant, but I'm not convinced by what you've said and I use the term that way quite a bit. I could very well be wrong. I ceded the issue and am satisfied with just agreeing that we choose to use the term differently. But you're so intent finding some deep character flaw because I don't agree. To give a bit more detail as to why, I simply think that definition lacks nuance. Again, it's minor but since it's all you've got, keep coming with it.

    What really irked me about all of this was you were a wuss about it and turned off comments. However, I don't have and didn't want to create a tag called "wuss writers".

    To sum it up however, likening the result of such a clear victory to a national tragedy, to me, IS idiotic and, even worse, it is disrespectful of those who have suffered through real national tragedies. It's rare I use that tag but you earned it.

  17. I linked the Reagan election because I thought I understood you to be using a numbers argument….53% of the popular vote can’t equate “infamy”. That sword cuts both ways & the ’84 Reagan election was a blow-out that is rarely acknowledged by the left, as they choose to ignore it & pretend it never occurred. In ’92 Clinton got in with 43% & Time magazine declared “Mandate for Change” on the front cover. My point was that these results sway back & forth & really mean very little to the real message of either side’s ideology. Obama got 53% & won….the “Right” will of course regroup in time & attempt convince the voting public that the incumbents ideas are flawed just as the “Left” did in ’92…neither side will concede anything. The cycle repeats every election.

    The election of Obama is a repudiation of everything the conservatives hold dear. Obama’s voting record in the Illinois & US Senate seems to jive with many of his comments…so the “Right” is anxious (which could explain the “Infamy” post)….no less anxious than the “Left” in 2000. Remember the “selected not elected” mantra? The “left” was further infuriated during the 2004 election when they thought Bush would surely get his comeuppance….when he didn’t many went over the ideological deep end (See Daily Kos & Huffington Post). Honestly, the general population & their voting record has a lot to be desired. They wanted George Washington to be their king….even though they just barely won their independence from a king. The election of Lincoln was an accident of a 4-way race in which he won less than 40% of the vote. Our greatest president ever won by sheer luck & not because of any noticeable leadership qualities. So, 53% is a nice number….but at this point it is hardly indicative of any great meaning. I know, it sounds extremely fatalistic….sorry. Really, I am.

    With that said, I think we're square. Yes?

    Perhaps. Forgive me, as I am new to your blog, but have you ever called out anyone from the Daily Kos or Huffington Post? The “Right” doesn’t have a monopoly on the gloom & doom conspiratorial projections & I’m curious if you’ve ever taken those 2 sites to task for equally alarmist rhetoric?

  18. I mentioned trolling in my reply to James because his tone was not intended to inspire a discussion but to piss me off and, on that, I say the mission failed.

    I posted that after being inspired by this:

    White guys shared the video and get the humor, so it's okay, right?

    What, you didn't get the humorous, tongue-in-cheek tone of MY post? Surely, since white people are not being "racist" by suggesting that we target white people ("Time to Take the White People's Guns"), I can knock "my own kind" (see the image linked in my earlier post). Oh, wait, I forgot the Motto of the "Progressive": Freedom for Me, but Not for Thee.

    Or "If I do it, it's art (or humor); if you do it, it's offensive (or trolling)."

    Lastly, in all seriousness, I have to make a comment about this "Editor of the Harvard Law Review" business. I attended an elite high school where about half of the graduating class went on to Ivy League universities (and that includes me, if I may write so immodestly). My high school best friend studied physics at Harvard and then went on to get his Ph.D. from CalTech. He now makes a living smashing atoms together.

    I have an advanced degree as well. Also, I have a number of family members, friends, associates, acquaintances and enemies with law degrees from Harvard, Yale, Michigan or Columbia (and others who have MBAs and other advanced degrees).

    Why do I bring this up? Because, in my experience, having such a label means very little.

    Most are fairly bright, but not all. One Harvard law grad I know is dumb as a door nail -- she cannot put together a cogent sentence or one without "like" after every word. Some are exceptionally intelligent, but not particularly principled.

    With some of them, I would not trust the management of a hot dog stand let alone a country of gazillion people.

    On the other hand, I know a University of Arkansas law grad who would cream most of them in court. And he is one of the most principled, honorable, courageous and devoted human beings I ever met.

    With most who attended such institutions of higher learning, one can GENERALLY assume hard work, intelligence and ambition, but not much beyond that.

    It says nothing about maturity, good judgment, good moral character, imagination, vision... I can go on.

    It was said in the past that in order to be president, one ought to have raised a family, run a business (or worked in the private sector) AND fought in a war. That makes sense. Raising family gives you empathy for other families and their plight. Running a business gives you understanding of how the economy affects the wealth-generating engine of society. And fighting in a war gives you the understanding of what military personnel goes through let alone what war can be like, an important trait for the Commander-in-Chief.

    Does Obama have these experiences? He is 1 for 3. McCain is 2 for 3.

    Winning an election decisively means little (e.g. Jimmy Carter or, gasp, George W. Bush in 2004).

  19. By the way, as for understanding and appreciation of the Constitution, I can tell you that the vast majority of attorneys I have met (including -- drum roll please -- Harvard law grads) either has a piss poor comprehension of, say, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution or just does not care that it has been violated egregiously.

    likening the result of such a clear victory to a national tragedy, to me, IS idiotic

    We shall see, won't we?

  20. I'd say that the Time Magazine cover was flat out wrong re Clinton and his mandate because so many of his policies simply got killed in Congress. He didn't have one.

    But that's not what happened here. He tied this election result to an American tragedy. I was actually in Korea in November 2000, but I do remember the "selected not elected" saying. But comparing the degree of that saying versus to likening the Obama results to an American tragedy is what gets me.

    You've brought up good points as to why using 53% as a part of my argument why that quote was too much is weak.

    In an election that was pretty much a clear victory across the board from the popular vote to Congressional seats it's just extreme to call it a tragedy. But I also agree that it was extreme to claim Clinton had a mandate when he was first elected.

    The thing is I rarely call out anyone. I've done it maybe a handful of times on my blog and I've been at it for almost 2 1/2 years.

    As for the Huff Po, I just started really paying attention to it over the last few months of the election. However, I don't read the Daily Kos. I trip over a stuff from it now and then because I'll see a news story or a link to it.

    I'm sure if I actually read them regularly I would, but you assuming what I read is what's most interesting about that question. If you read a comment I made about my most recent podcast picks, I wasn't too pleased with what Rachel Maddow had to say last week.

    So, again, with that said, I think we're square.

  21. James,

    I don't know you and I know you don't know me. What I do know is Richardson is annoyed with me. I know that suddenly after I slammed him that he called out the hounds. That would be you and bohdi1971. That's fine. You've both actually been more of a pleasure than a displeasure to virtually speak to.

    But considering the context of hostility, no, I wasn't seeing any humor outside of mocking humor in what you wrote. This is the first time ever you guys have been to on my blog and, if I'm wrong about that, it's certainly the first time you've bothered to comment. Richardson actually has, under less confrontational circumstances, commented before.

    I wrote the white guys thing because actually, yes, the two people I learned of the video from are both white men. It was a defensive move because if you're white, you're just being funny like my friend and the Wonkette blogger. If you're black you're playing the race card. That I have had come up in the comment section of my blog and that I just wasn't in the mood deal with.

    The thing is James, it sounds like we know very similar people in terms of education. I didn't go to an elite high school. Instead I went to a high school for the arts, which, in its own way is elite because only talented kids can get in. However, I grew disillusioned with that and ended up at an excellent public university. Which is another reason I think it's amusing you use "brothas" 'cause honestly, most of the black people I'm friends with are white collar professionals.

    Anyway, I know some really smart people who went to great schools who are first-class idiots. I'm talking about one man, president-elect Obama, who has, in my opinion, lived up to the degrees that back him.

    As for McCain, I don't want to get into it because my opinion of him but for him being a POW is low. That's only going to offend you and the others so newly enamored of commenting on this particular blog.

  22. Okay, stupid republicans need to grow the F up. Republicans always cite Obama's connection to Rev. Wright as a reason to not elect him. Wake up you Dumb As, Bush's Grandfather gave money to Nazis.,2933,100474,00.html

    Yes you read correctly, this is a fox news story for all of those who don't believe anything that doesn't come from anywhere else. We have been governed by someone whose father was a Nazi sympathizer and whose company's assets was ceased by the government. I wonder why Bush fought so hard to unravel the new deal?

    So fly your flags upside down, go ahead be babies. The far right cries every time a flag is burned but whenever there is a Klan rally and the flag is flown next to swasticas the right doesn't do shit. So cry your damn crocodile tears.

  23. Damn Sam,

    Just as things seemed to be calming down over here.

    Now I do agree, so that's why it's up.

    But Damn Sam, the tone...that tone ;)

  24. wow, that was exciting...almost like Mary Matlin and James Carville...

    If only we could have had a video of the debate...

  25. I think in real life I just would have said rolled my eyes and walked out. ;)

  26. Yes, I believe we’re now square.

    For the record I’m no hound to be called out. I read many blogs (including Richardson’s) & comment almost never (as a percentage to what I’ve read) as there rarely any merit to doing so. It’s just not worth my time to exchange ideas with blind ideological bomb-throwers who will never rationally be objective & staying out of the fray is preferable. I was tracking Richardson’s “Infamy” blog & stumbled onto yours. I generally find Richardson’s postings well-reasoned even if I don’t always agree with them, although in this case he might have gone a little harsher on the election results than I would have.

    Speaking of moronic bomb-throwers… 3gyupsal, the article does not say what you claim. Rather it stated very clearly that “The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort.”. If you read the whole story you find that the fellow who did actually direct money to the Nazi’s spent 4 years in a one of their prisons because he changed his views. The Rev. Wright issue & Prescott Bush are not comparable & there’s no way a rational person would think that they are. The Rev. Wright issue, while not conclusive is certainly troubling to many….given the prominence of his influence to Obama before the video of some of his sermons was aired.

    Expat, I’ll try to visit your site & occasionally comment. Thanks for your rational exchange….I wish there was more of that in the world & less shrillness.

  27. Sorry, sorry, I just needed to get that off my chest. Now that I said it I consider myself toned down. In trying to sign up for your comment field I inadvertantly created my own blog so if I have any vitrol to publish I'll just do it on my own site. Once again so sorry.

  28. bothi ---

    Okay, you're not a hound...maybe ;) It just felt that way.

    It will be nice to see you around from time to time. I will eventually go crazed liberal again and you can take it to me.

    Sam ---

    No need to say "sorry". It was one of those "oh no he didn't" moments and one of the few comments that's made me laugh, 'cause man, that was some crazy anger. So the laughter earned you a pass ;)

    I didn't click over to the Fox News link, but, well, make sure you check your stuff. I think maybe bothi raised some good points. (Yeah, he's won me over a bit.)

    Happy blogging, it's a rough and tumble virtual world out there.

  29. "expatjane,"

    I know that suddenly after I slammed him that he called out the hounds

    The first part of that sentence is right.

    As for the rest, Richardson is a big boy and can take care of himself, but he is not the mastermind of a nefarious plot to rally his minions to gang up on you. If you think otherwise, either you have an undue paranoia or an inflated sense of your importance in the world.

    The issue boils down to this. You overreacted to Richardson's post on DPRK because you had NO CLUE what the upside down flag meant. You just didn't and so you just assumed.

    If that were me in a similar circumstance, I'd just "man up," admit my previous ignorance of the meaning of the gesture, apologize and move on, rather than put up lengthy, ever-evolving explantions of why I am still right.

    The thing is James, it sounds like we know very similar people in terms of education. I didn't go to an elite high school. Instead I went to a high school for the arts

    Well, I don't know what kind of high school you attended. If this is the kind of high school where kids study 18 hours a day (literally) and are fiercely competitive and conduct scientific reseach with graduate students at Columbia University, then, yes, I'd say we attended similar high schools.

  30. "3gyupsal"

    Okay, stupid republicans need to grow the F up... Wake up you Dumb As

    You do realize that one of the things that differentiates a grown up and a juvenile is the ability to control one's emotion and constrain oneself from launching into crass vulgarities, right?

    Bush's Grandfather gave money to Nazis.

    If true, that's horrible, I'd agree. If true, I immediately urge "Bush's Grandfather" to resign all public posts and apologize for his misdeeds.

    Now, will you urge the president-elect to immediately resign from all posts and apologize for his racist and terrorist associations?

    I didn't think so.

    "expatjane" again,

    Now I do agree, so that's why it's up.

    Leftist vulgarity = cool because you agree, rightist vulgarity = moderated, eh?

    Nothing like hypocrisy.

    And, finally, if you think that blaming someone for his grandfather's potential misdeed is morally equivalent to holding someone accountable for his own misdeed, I really should not come back to this blog and waste my time arguing. It would be beside the point.

  31. Maybe you weren't released, but it's really interesting that I've never seen you on this blog ever but now you've been here two days in a row. You just happened to wander over after a Google search or check on Technorati? That's possible.

    And with that said, here we go...again.

    You overreacted to Richardson's post on DPRK because you had NO CLUE what the upside down flag meant.

    What? That's a great example of snatching something out of thin air and assuming that you know what I was thinking.

    Richardson said what an upside down flag meant. In fact, the screen shot says it means distress. Maybe he'd updated the blog by the time I went to look at it and took the picture. I know what it meant and, even if I didn't, I said early in this ever growing ridiculous series of comments that I accepted his definition.

    Where is there any discussion about what an upside down flag means except at the very start of this? Did you not read his blog where he defines what it means? Did you not read the comments here?

    Now that long dead issue is back, thanks to you needing something to throw at me. Again, I reacted to him likening the election results to a national tragedy and him turning comments off. This I know I've said a few times over at this point. Seems like you might be one of those educated fools you railed on about earlier. I believe the symbolism he used is inappropriate and I don't need to apologize for what I think.

    As for schooling, I said we went to similar high schools in the sense that the students are elite for the purposes of the school. Many of our alumni are working actors, musicians or behind the scenes and/or famous. I was drawing a similarity in that sense and certainly not because of 18 hour study sessions and Columbia level scientific experiments. No wonder you're so mean. It sounds invigorating but very stressful. Relax James.

    As to "leftist vulgarity", I can't disagree with that. Sam's initial made me laugh because I've held back on any vulgar impulses or thought I've had during this silliness.

    The point about conservatives getting beside themselves when it comes to the use of flag is what I agree with. I don't know about nor did I click over to the Fox story because Bush has one foot out the door, and I don't care about attacking him or his family. Sorry for the broad statement indicating I agreed with it all. However, since this going back and forth hasn't been about the issue for quite a few replies and it's just about seeing what little bitty thing that's out of place you can attack me for, that clarification probably is slated for an attack soon too.

  32. Seems like you might be one of those educated fools

    You need to look up "ad hominem," young lady. Why is it that so many people on the left are incapable of making a point without needlessly and counterproductively throwing name-calling around?

    Ad hominem is usually the sign of a weak argument.

    No wonder you're so mean.

    Is it "being mean" to poke holes in weak arguments and name-calling?

    Or is that how adults should argue?

    And something I did not address earlier:

    As for McCain, I don't want to get into it because my opinion of him but for him being a POW is low.

    I dislike Senator McCain and his views for a number reasons, the main one being that I am a principled conservative whereas McCain is wishy-washy on a number of subjects as well as being a principal author of the constitutional monstrosity that is McCain-Feingold.

    Nonetheless, suffering years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of our communist enemies during his military service is something to be admired rather than denigrated. Better still, his refusal to be released from captivity unless all of his fellow prisoners were released along side him speaks volumes about his sense of duty, patriotism and bond with his fellow American servicemen.

    I gather you find this all very negative given your cryptic statement. If so, you sure picked a funny day to do it -- it is the Veterans Day in America today (11/11).

    I spent the last few hours writing individual e-mails of thanks to every single person I know who is a veteran, starting with my wife's grandfather who bled for us in the ETO during WWII.

    If you have heard their stories and seen their still-wounded bodies like I have, you'd have just a little more respect for their sacrifice.

    It sounds invigorating but very stressful. Relax James.

    I am relaxed, because I am retired at a still tender young age! And that's why I am spending time arguing with the author of a silly post about "taking guns away from white people" whatever that means.

    Were I not relaxed and still living a high paced, stressful life, I would not be wasting my time thusly.

    Good luck with your life.

  33. I don't need to look up ad hominem. Richardson brought it up as soon as he started commenting, so even if I didn't know what it meant just a couple of days ago, I know it now. However, I knew what it meant before that.

    You're hostile and rude. In what book is that not mean? I guess in the world of principled conservatives being hostile and rude short of name calling is fine. keep believing that.

    You're again stretching things to ridiculous lengths. The issue that started this whole dispute? Not a mention of it, but just another layer of distraction from what got this all started.

    So now you're going on about Veteran's Day and how I picked a day to make a comment about McCain's POW story. For a smart man, that's just dumb because I was addressing what you'd said about McCain. I replied that I don't like him now (I did in 2000) and it's something that isn't worth talking about because it's just going to be another issue where we conflict. I said I respected McCain for what he went through as a POW.

    You know the story. I know the story. He didn't cash in on his status when they offered him a quick way out. That's definitely admirable. Where in what I wrote did I indicate anything otherwise? It's just another point you've chosen to frankly make-up. Now you're thrown in not just McCain but every US veteran out there implying that somehow because I have a low opinion of McCain somehow covers all veterans. What the hell?

    You come in saying that you're not bragging but this is your elite educational background and how you know many Ivy alumni. You said there are essentially educated fools that come out of these elite institutions. That's very much true. You also took a swipe at me when I said I've also come out of some selective schools.

    That was an attempt to undercut what I'd said about Obama's education and the swipe was an attempt to undercut me, so maybe you avoided name calling but you've been attacking too. In regards to Obama's education, I replied that I was referring to him specifically because I too have dealt with some simps from elite schools. As an aside, I've dealt with some pretty brilliant janitors and bus drivers too.

    Considering that you'd snatched up an issue long settled, I wondered if maybe you were part of the group of educated fools you'd described so well.

    Thank you for the wish of a life of good luck. Deep differences aside, I wish the same for you.

  34. don't need to look up ad hominem. Richardson brought it up as soon as he started commenting, so even if I didn't know what it meant just a couple of days ago, I know it now. However, I knew what it meant before that.

    Sure, of course you did. Just like you knew beforehand that upside down flag meant "distress" (hence the repeated "even if I didn't know").

    I think you need to look it up again. And this time, try to digest and absorb its meaning. Learn it, practice it, live it.

    You're hostile and rude. In what book is that not mean? I guess in the world of principled conservatives being hostile and rude short of name calling is fine

    I think "rude short of name calling" is much better than "rude and name calling."

    You don't seem to get it, do you? There is a BIG difference between attacking someone personally and attacking someone's arguments.

    Never once did I write that you are stupid, dense, foolish, rude, hostile, stubborn, prone to lying, what have you. All I have done was to engage your arguments and statements and take them to task.

    I don't know who you are or what you are like in person, so I have no means of evaluating you as a human being. But I can certainly criticize your illogical statements and the weakness of your arguments that you put on the public domain.

    That is called DEBATING, not "hostile and rude."

    It's like you never went through the Socratic questioning during your education.

    swipe was an attempt to undercut me

    You have got to get over this paranoia that others are out to get you, cut you down and keep you down.

    I hope, one of these days, you will develop the courage and self-esteem to say "I am sorry" after you call people names and appreciate their patient willingness to engage you in debate even after being name-called.

    Again, good luck with that.

  35. Again, you roll back into my comment section so far away from what brought you here that it's laughable.

    You can argue, accept a section of someone's argument but still reject it as a whole. Hence the use of "even if I didn't know". I'm humoring you.

    Let me spell it out since you're not getting it.

    Let's say I had no idea what an upside down flag meant or even what "ad hominem" meant. But what I did was go to that blog, saw the image and right under the image Richardson had explained is a distress signal. But having no shame, I was so eager to attack that I went out of my way to get a screen shot, save the screen shot and link the screen shot that I never bothered to actually read it. I didn't notice that he'd defined what an upside down flag meant. Even worse, I didn't make any attempt to process what that meant in the context of Obama's election victory.

    Today you're back in my comment section and you say that I didn't know it was a distress signal. That IS implying a story similar to the one I've just spun. That implies that I'm slow, stupid or, at a minimum, simply careless.

    Richardson also started off here throwing "ad hominem" around, so, if I didn't know what it was two days ago, I think I would have gone and looked up that fancy Latin he was throwing around.

    On both counts, if you're coming here and telling me that I don't know these two things you're saying implying that I'm a bit slow. You did it today with both examples.

    So if you weren't implying that I'm still ignorant of the meanings of this signal and term what exactly were you saying?

    I'm just not buying your song and dance. You can very well insult someone without saying a name or hurling an epithet. If you don't know that, then maybe you ought to spend some of that free time you've got learning that. You can't have it both ways. You can't come in my comment section talking about the "brothas" having illegal guns, talking about Obama being a post-racial hypocrite and poking fun at a speech he made about men who need to step up to their duties as fathers but then try to say that you're merely here to engage in an objective debate. That's bullshit.

    As for correcting a writing error, thanks.

    Now I have no self-esteem and no courage. Okay, that's not an insult either. The fact that I'm publishing your comments and replying to them shows I've got plenty of self-esteem and courage.

    If you come back try sticking to the issues because the obfuscation and attacks just aren't working that well.

  36. Jane, I was wondering as to your take on a few issues. Not in order to debate, just out of sincere curiosity...

    Do you think Obama's election will cause the left to become a bit confused and disorientated, after all it has spent many decades lambasting their own country as irreparably racist?

    Do you think Obama's election will affect the unfortunate attitude in some black communites, particularly among young males, that educational success is a sign of trying to "be white"?

    And in general, how do you feel this historic event will affect Black Americans feelings towards America in general? I noted your flag post, and also Whoopi Goldberg's statement regarding feeling totally at home, not to mention Michelle Obama's comments about her own feelings towards our country.

    As a very very proud American who was raised to love America, it pleases me that more people now love it. But it is curious as to why so many seem to only now love it now(both among Americans and non-Americans). I wonder, if McCain had prevailed, would the alienation from America gotten stronger, even despite Obama's run for the Presidency?

    It's not like the country changed, it simply made a choice of leader. For thiose on the right, Obama's election is a vindication of everything we believe about our country, whereas for the left, it seems to pose inherently complex questions.

    And finally, what do you feel about Obama's elections's affect on the debate regarding affirmative action and regarding the need for racially gerrymandered districts?

    Seems as if his election would support the right's view that both of these are historical relics that should be done away with.

  37. I guess, then, you think it's perfectly mature to engage in name-calling in an argument, eh?


    Goodbye and good luck winning arguments with that in the future.

  38. Again, an incident of pot calling kettle. You can intimate and imply and that's fine. But I'm classless because I have no problem with being blunt. BTW, I won my argument a few replies back.

    However, it's actually not about winning for me. Ideally, it's about understanding. Maybe for you it's about winning, which is maybe why you keep bringing this tired distract and insult tactic back over and over. You're so far from the issues that you started with that you just don't have much else to go with.

    So good luck to you too.


Hey there! Thanks for visiting my blog. It's my first blog, and I'm glad folks are still stopping by even though I'm no longer living in South Korea. Feel free to comment. If you want a personal answer, leave your email, and I won't publish the comment. Nasty comments and spam links will not be tolerated.