Does it bug Obamabots, that's it's Clinton II

[B_starinvestor]

Of course they have, Vinyl. My point is that you don't have to acknowledge the label. It is a standard right wing framing device that works pretty well when the right wing wants to consolidate their base. By creating a derogatory term that diminishes and dehumanizes those who think differently than they do, it helps them build up their paranoid narrative that everything is a conspiracy that is out to attack their 'culture'.

And this is diffent that Republicants, racists, conservicons or republicrackers?

By planting that fear in their base, they can round them up and turn them into a frenzied mob. The goal is to create a narrative that denies that anyone who voted for Obama could be a clear thinking rational individual who carefully weighed the pros and cons and voted accordingly.

A frenzied mob...have you seen any of the victory rallies on the eve of Nov. 4th? How would you characterize those?

So again, my point is that if the term Obamabot doesn't fit you, then you have no need to respond to the OP. The fact that he targeted his question after Obamabots doesn't mean you have to defend them. If everyone followed that advice, these kinds of troll-like threads would die for lack of interest.

Ok. But where do you draw the line, JA? The liberals can push and push, but the conservatives should be gagged?

In fact, the underlying OP's question is legitimate. But the troll-like insulting form of it disqualifies it from deserving any kind of response.

Is it troll-like to post threads attacking and ridiculing Palin..still? Look at the last thread started by Sargon.

 

[JustAsking]

starinvestor,
Sure, there is name calling all over the place. My advice to you is the same. If the label doesn't fit you, then don't respond. The amazing thing about this forum is that most of the biggest offenders of name calling are also some of the most intelligent and interesting people here.

You, faceking, sargon, bigg, etc, all display a prodigious intelligence at times. I don't understand why there is so much insult-trolling going on. The topic in this thread is a good example. There is a lot of uncertainty in many circles about Obama's cabinet choices.

This is the most difficult balancing act in a long time. Consider that Obama has to:

• Satisfy the far left whose support he cultivated.
• Satisfy those who voted for him on the idea of radical change.
• Satisfy those who voted for him based on his promise of bipartisanism.
• Satisfy those who voted for him thinking he would pick the most qualified candidates.

Consider that although he promised no lobbyists in his adminstration, he has discovered that the lobbyists are mostly seasoned ex-government people who also happen to know how everything works.

Consider that Hillary might be one of the best qualified Sec of State, but would she be tempted to serve in a way that improves her chances in 2012.

This topic goes on forever. If you staff up with too many outsiders you end up with a Carter Administration where it took them a couple of years just to figure out how things work. If you staff up with the best and most knowledgable people, you might get too much of the 'same old'.

I submit that most people in this forum could offer very interesting commentary on this topic. But they are too busy responding to the OP's insults and returning them in kind.

 

[B_starinvestor]

starinvestor,
Sure, there is name calling all over the place. My advice to you is the same. If the label doesn't fit you, then don't respond. The amazing thing about this forum is that most of the biggest offenders of name calling are also some of the most intelligent and interesting people here.

You, faceking, sargon, bigg, etc, all display a prodigious intelligence at times. I don't understand why there is so much insult-trolling going on. The topic in this thread is a good example. There is a lot of uncertainty in many circles about Obama's cabinet choices.

This is the most difficult balancing act in a long time. Consider that Obama has to:

• Satisfy the far left whose support he cultivated.
• Satisfy those who voted for him on the idea of radical change.
• Satisfy those who voted for him based on his promise of bipartisanism.
• Satisfy those who voted for him thinking he would pick the most qualified candidates.

Consider that although he promised no lobbyists in his adminstration, he has discovered that the lobbyists are mostly seasoned ex-government people who also happen to know how everything works.

Consider that Hillary might be one of the best qualified Sec of State, but would she be tempted to serve in a way that improves her chances in 2012.

This topic goes on forever. If you staff up with too many outsiders you end up with a Carter Administration where it took them a couple of years just to figure out how things work. If you staff up with the best and most knowledgable people, you might get too much of the 'same old'.

I submit that most people in this forum could offer very interesting commentary on this topic. But they are too busy responding to the OP's insults and returning them in kind.

He certainly has a lot on his plate and the balancing act will be nearly impossible to overcome. At the end of the day, he will make his cabinet choices and he is indeed the coach/quarterback. Hopefully his choices will work out. That said, he is quickly discovering the sober reality that campaign promises and the real world are not compatible.

Further, I trust that you can appreciate that conservatives have been attacked, scorned, humiliated and ridiculed by liberals courtesy of the Bush Admin for years, and even moreso over the past few months. If some of us on the conservative side of the aisle are more prone to retaliate in certain circumstances, I believe it is a well-earned right to question the incoming Administration.

The membership on LPSG is overwhelmingly liberal. Over the election cycle, in which I posted actively, I can't name 10 conservatives in total in this forum. There have been over 100 that have posted for the Obama Administration.

 

[Qua]

It is a standard right wing framing device that works pretty well when the right wing wants to consolidate their base. By creating a derogatory term that diminishes and dehumanizes those who think differently than they do, it helps them build up their paranoid narrative that everything is a conspiracy that is out to attack their 'culture'.

This is 100% analagous to both sides JA. It's just so hard to reverse because the conservatives who do it are wrong and ignorant, while the liberals who do it are proving a point and/or just "accurately" reflecting reality (Faceking vs his humorless left wing alter ego Sargon). Spin is spin, derogatory buzzwords are a tool of politics without regard to orientation. Don't frame this framing device as simply a right wing framing device.

EDIT: Besides, Obamabot is simply another brilliant example of why Obama has the best last name ever. I'm going to an Obamarama on Obamanomics with many fellow Obamaniacs. He'll be talking about Obamabots as a solution to the energy crisis.

 

[JustAsking]

This is 100% analagous to both sides JA. It's just so hard to reverse because the conservatives who do it are wrong and ignorant, while the liberals who do it are proving a point and/or just "accurately" reflecting reality (Faceking vs his humorless left wing alter ego Sargon). Spin is spin, derogatory buzzwords are a tool of politics without regard to orientation. Don't frame this framing device as simply a right wing framing device.

EDIT: Besides, Obamabot is simply another brilliant example of why Obama has the best last name ever. I'm going to an Obamarama on Obamanomics with many fellow Obamaniacs. He'll be talking about Obamabots as a solution to the energy crisis.

In IRL, the right wing is way better at this framing thing than the left. They have practiced it a lot longer and have it down to an art form. To wit: Torte Reform, Tax Relief, Free Market, Teach The Controversy, etc. This stuff is very effective. The left really sucks at it despite George Lakoff's books which attempted to advise the left on how to do it.

When the left throws epithets they are just insults. They don't really have this subtle narrative resonance that the right has perfected. What is worse, the left doesn't even get that they are being 'framed' sometimes and just go ahead and use the same phrase.

For example, the left would also use the phrase 'torte reform' playing right into the narrative. They never think to counter with a phrase that plays to a different narrative. For example, for everyone who talks about torte reform, the left should use the phrase 'consumer protection'. Whenever the right uses the term 'free market' the left should use the term 'unregulated markets'. But they never learn.

As for the Obama name. It is incredible how people are fitting it into other words. Today I saw on CNN, in a piece on the possible choice of Hillary for Sec of State, the subtitle 'Diplobamacy'. The name is like a universal solvent or something. It can seep into any other word as an infix and keep the prosody balanced (like a good infix should).

 

[B_Nick4444]

By planting that fear in their base, they can round them up and turn them into a frenzied mob. The term 'Obamabot' here is meant to imply that anyone who voted for Obama has done so because someone has cast some kind of zombie spell on them. The goal is to create a narrative that denies that anyone who voted for Obama could be a clear thinking rational individual who carefully weighed the pros and cons and voted accordingly.

not quite, dear fellow

several interview studies were conducted, and the vast majority of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters could NOT articulate the basis of their support

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

not quite, dear fellow

several interview studies were conducted, and the vast majority of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters could NOT articulate the basis of their support

Which studies?

Do you think that these people articulate the basis of their support?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Which studies?

Do you think that these people articulate the basis of their support?

Heh... looks like some of those most enthusiastic McCain/Palin supporters could NOT articulate the basis of their support either. :wink:

Instead of talking about the otaku on both sides, why don't we all focus on the rational ones. If there are anymore left, of course...

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Heh... looks like some of those most enthusiastic McCain/Palin supporters could NOT articulate the basis of their support either. :wink:

Instead of talking about the otaku on both sides, why don't we all focus on the rational ones. If there are anymore left, of course...

I especially loved the guy saying that he knew about Palin for the last three years. She was the may or a small town in Alaska and yet he somehow knew of her. It's both funny and sad. There's no smiley for that.

 

[B_Nick4444]

I'm sure you have the crowd mentality in both camps, and undecipherable knee jerk support, as well

my point is simply that the phenomena was observed and described, as regards Obama supporters, which is where the epithet arose, in part as descriptor, in part as propaganda

which is to say, not solely as propaganda

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm sure you have the crowd mentality in both camps, and undecipherable knee jerk support, as well

my point is simply that the phenomena was observed and described, as regards Obama supporters, which is where the epithet arose, in part as descriptor, in part as propaganda

which is to say, not solely as propaganda

But if we can recognize this on both sides of the political spectrum, then why emphasize just one part of it? They're both equally fanatical, and somewhat irrational in thinking when it pertains to the candidates they chose to follow during the election.

 

[B_Nick4444]

well, as JA pointed out, that part of it was propaganda, from the con side, and propaganda, as we all know, has to repose on some facts, and possibly distort or omit other facts

 

[B_Nick4444]

BTW, it might in fact be Clinton II

analyst interviewed on Bloomberg just gave his views on the current business cycle

based on his estimates, the cyle's upturn and return of prosperity, in his view, is going to favor Obama's second term

so Obama, like Clinton, will be given credit for something he will have had little to do with, if his estimates are correct

 

[Qua]

so Obama, like Clinton, will be given credit for something he will have had little to do with, if his estimates are correct

Economic response lags: Nature's cruel little joke to those trying to figure out effective economic policy since [only] the late 19th Century.

Go figure nobody really gets economics. I'm the kind who has to throw up my arms and shrug when asked frankly about where I stand economically. I'd rather be ignorant than blissfully and ignorantly fallacious. And that state is waaaay too common among college-aged kids. I couldn't get shit worth of an economic discussion out of the majority of my friends and peers, whether "Obamabots" or "Nobamabots."

Does anyone else think more attention needs to be paid to econ in secondary education?

 

[chadstallion]

PITCH FOR HORROR FILM: Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura have a test tube baby that lives off of AM Radio waves.

That's it. Nothing more to add.

my favorite fairness doctrine new radio show:
The Rush and Rachel Hour; Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow do a Hannity/Colmes style free for all. that would be fair and balanced!

 

[e1ectricfee1]

Skipping to the end of the thread, so sorry if I'm repeating previous posts:

1. The economy might have been "booming" under Clinton, but that was also with a Republican Congress.
2. No one likes Bush, but that's not to say McCain would do the same things.
3. Palin's a MILF (and the reason for my 1% ;D) but an absolute retard. And McCain probably, honestly, wouldn't have done much differently from Bush.
4. Hiring people from the 90's isn't changing anything.
5. Politics sucks, both sides. They all suck. Nothing will change. Even South Park will tell you that. xD

 

[Biggin']

whoever you want to believe, who was the majority party in the house and senate when slick willie was there?

And watch what you say about Maddow. He's frigging hot.

<http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3>

and then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

you bots believed the fakery in the change slogan. YOUVE BEEN HAD! which group that he pandered to will be disappoint first?

 

[B_Nick4444]

Does anyone else think more attention needs to be paid to econ in secondary education?

yes, indeed

and more history

 

[faceking]

Skipping to the end of the thread, so sorry if I'm repeating previous posts:

1. The economy might have been "booming" under Clinton, but that was also with a Republican Congress.
2. No one likes Bush, but that's not to say McCain would do the same things.
3. Palin's a MILF (and the reason for my 1% ;D) but an absolute retard. And McCain probably, honestly, wouldn't have done much differently from Bush.
4. Hiring people from the 90's isn't changing anything.
5. Politics sucks, both sides. They all suck. Nothing will change. Even South Park will tell you that. xD

Post of the week. Seriously. Unbiased, and honest.

 

[faceking]

note to self:

entice LPSG Obamabots to laud the Clinton appointee... then research their own beration of said and post on Poli sub-forum of said Clintonista circa summer o' '08.