2009 Election/Politics thread Part 1

[Brando70]

I would say that white men still run everything, too, but one of the "others" is president now.

We have 647 black mayors in this country. You honky's don't run everything.

There's still 45 of us crackers running the states.

[GameSeven]

That's what bothered me about the blog post, and that was the bleating I was thinking of.

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I didn't really read the blog, but only watched the video.

The bottom line is, with the election of Obama, while I don't share the same swelling of emotion for his election as others because I question certain idealogical differences I have with the man, I am proud that America has come far enough in its young history to elect a black man. Of course, his skin color should not be the slightest factor in his election although undoubtedly that influenced a (hopefully small) number of votes from all sides of the political spectrum.

To have race so plainly injected into a political discussion so soon into his cabinet's governance is perhaps a bit jarring even if that wasn't Reich's intent.

[Jackdog]

Are you kidding? That would mean he actually clicked on the link and understood what you guys are discussing.

I'm nipping this stuff in the bud. If I didn't make it clear in the last thread, I will make it EVEN CLEARER now. Keep up the comments about the intelligence, comprehension, etc. of other posters, and I will go ban-crazy or lock the politics thread forever.

For joking??? OK.

[Teal]

Are you kidding? That would mean he actually clicked on the link and understood what you guys are discussing.

I'm nipping this stuff in the bud. If I didn't make it clear in the last thread, I will make it EVEN CLEARER now. Keep up the comments about the intelligence, comprehension, etc. of other posters, and I will go ban-crazy or lock the politics thread forever.

For joking??? OK.

Yeah, Jared...what're you..NUTS?!?

EDIT: I gotta vent. We're losing a sane, well versed, and intelligent addition to DSP because of this ridiculous exchange; an exchange, I might add, Jared, that was not the least bit necessary if you wouldn't be so damned gunshy and knock-kneed when (mostly) adult men do what they do. If they're too f***in immature to eventually work it out, it oughta be our damned problem. 40-something year old men don't need momma jumping into every fracas, either real or imagined. And this one was imagined.

Good job.

[FatPitcher]

I'm pretty sure Reich is not starting a crusade against Joe the Construction worker. His point, once you get past the screeching boldface of "white people" and "others" (LOL, gotta love that code word), is that these programs do tend to benefit white men. Know why? Because despite the bleating of white men who are crying about their slight loss in social status, white men pretty much own everything in this country, and when you conduct big government projects like construction, they tend to get the lion's share of the benefits. That's what he means when he says the benefits should not simply go to high-skilled workers (i.e. white collar workers) and the construction sector, which is dominated by white male owners and workers (when they're not using illegal aliens to do their work).

I would say that white men still run everything, too, but one of the "others" is president now.

So we should not spend money hiring white people who need help because other white people own things? We should treat certain individuals worse than others under the law simply because other people who share their skin color are successful?

Sounds a lot to me like the justification people use for their anti-Jewish views.

[FatPitcher]

That's what bothered me about the blog post, and that was the bleating I was thinking of.

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I didn't really read the blog, but only watched the video.

The bottom line is, with the election of Obama, while I don't share the same swelling of emotion for his election as others because I question certain idealogical differences I have with the man, I am proud that America has come far enough in its young history to elect a black man. Of course, his skin color should not be the slightest factor in his election although undoubtedly that influenced a (hopefully small) number of votes from all sides of the political spectrum.

To have race so plainly injected into a political discussion so soon into his cabinet's governance is perhaps a bit jarring even if that wasn't Reich's intent.

But it was his intent. His reasoning and his conclusion were both entirely for the purpose of inserting race and gender politics into the stimulus bill.

[JRod]

Well Reich was unprofessional saying those things. He could have just said the construction industry. He was trying to inject race into the matter which makes his comments stupid.


Why he said those things, maybe it's how the "honorary Clintons" talk about Obama. This is the downside of the blogosphere. Stuff like this gets picked up on Fox news and is treated like real news. Reich isn't the commerce Secretary and I don't know if he was apart of Obama's economy team.

[webdanzer]

EDIT: I gotta vent. We're losing a sane, well versed, and intelligent addition to DSP because of this ridiculous exchange; an exchange, I might add, Jared, that was not the least bit necessary if you wouldn't be so damned gunshy and knock-kneed when (mostly) adult men do what they do. If they're too f***in immature to eventually work it out, it oughta be our damned problem. 40-something year old men don't need momma jumping into every fracas, either real or imagined. And this one was imagined.

Good job.

Totally uncalled for, Teal, and you are flat out wrong. It's Jared's site, and he can certainly be the arbiter of its level of discourse. 40-something year old men should have the common decency to respect the wishes of their hosts. If Jared doesn't want to run a site where folks are demeaning to one another, that is his right. If you want it to be 'your own dammed problem,' you can certainly take the discussion elsewhere.

Posters flinging s*** at each other in Jared's house will leave his house covered in s***, and he can absolutely take steps to prevent that.

[Teal]

EDIT: I gotta vent. We're losing a sane, well versed, and intelligent addition to DSP because of this ridiculous exchange; an exchange, I might add, Jared, that was not the least bit necessary if you wouldn't be so damned gunshy and knock-kneed when (mostly) adult men do what they do. If they're too f***in immature to eventually work it out, it oughta be our damned problem. 40-something year old men don't need momma jumping into every fracas, either real or imagined. And this one was imagined.

Good job.

Totally uncalled for, Teal, and you are flat out wrong. It's Jared's site, and he can certainly be the arbiter of its level of discourse. 40-something year old men should have the common decency to respect the wishes of their hosts. If Jared doesn't want to run a site where folks are demeaning to one another, that is his right. If you want it to be 'your own dammed problem,' you can certainly take the discussion elsewhere.

Posters flinging s*** at each other in Jared's house will leave his house covered in s***, and he can absolutely take steps to prevent that.

Then Jared should've chosen a post with actual vitriol in it...because Jack's certainly didn't fit the bill. At all. In any way. There's a helluva lot of difference between a good-natured ribbing, and a character assassination. I am not flat out wrong. I know it's Jared's site, but if we're going to play "I'm going to take my ball and go home", then this has degenerated into something I no longer wish to be a part of, either. Jack didn't fling any s*** at anyone with that post, and you know it. Jared oughta know it. He had no reason to go after Jack-none whatsoever.

[wco81]

Anything with the slightest whiff of affirmative action is going to raise hackles.

[Teal]

Anything with the slightest whiff of affirmative action is going to raise hackles.

Because affirmative action is complete bullshit. It's another way of saying 'You're too f***in stupid to get this job on merit alone'.

[bdoughty]

EDIT: I gotta vent. We're losing a sane, well versed, and intelligent addition to DSP because of this ridiculous exchange; an exchange, I might add, Jared, that was not the least bit necessary if you wouldn't be so damned gunshy and knock-kneed when (mostly) adult men do what they do. If they're too f***in immature to eventually work it out, it oughta be our damned problem. 40-something year old men don't need momma jumping into every fracas, either real or imagined. And this one was imagined.

Good job.

Totally uncalled for, Teal, and you are flat out wrong. It's Jared's site, and he can certainly be the arbiter of its level of discourse. 40-something year old men should have the common decency to respect the wishes of their hosts. If Jared doesn't want to run a site where folks are demeaning to one another, that is his right. If you want it to be 'your own dammed problem,' you can certainly take the discussion elsewhere.

Posters flinging s*** at each other in Jared's house will leave his house covered in s***, and he can absolutely take steps to prevent that.

Well there are plenty of places to discuss things on the internet. I came back here because there are some really cool people to chat with.

Losing Jackdog would be a blow to this or any forum. Great guy who I would fight in a foxhole with.

I think Jared needs to look at the "perceived" bias of his moderating as Jrod got away with saying things that sure seemed bannable to me, in the last political thread.

There comes a point when Jrod needs to take some action and actually read the things posted before making his little generalizations. He has done this in the past, many time. Is it really attacking a person to state a fact. Fact: Jrod tends to NOT read other peoples post before replying. Fact: Jrod did that in this very thread.

[Brando70]

I'm pretty sure Reich is not starting a crusade against Joe the Construction worker. His point, once you get past the screeching boldface of "white people" and "others" (LOL, gotta love that code word), is that these programs do tend to benefit white men. Know why? Because despite the bleating of white men who are crying about their slight loss in social status, white men pretty much own everything in this country, and when you conduct big government projects like construction, they tend to get the lion's share of the benefits. That's what he means when he says the benefits should not simply go to high-skilled workers (i.e. white collar workers) and the construction sector, which is dominated by white male owners and workers (when they're not using illegal aliens to do their work).

I would say that white men still run everything, too, but one of the "others" is president now.

So we should not spend money hiring white people who need help because other white people own things? We should treat certain individuals worse than others under the law simply because other people who share their skin color are successful?

Sounds a lot to me like the justification people use for their anti-Jewish views.

That's not the meaning of what I wrote, but I don't want to get in an argument about it.

[bdoughty]

I'm pretty sure Reich is not starting a crusade against Joe the Construction worker. His point, once you get past the screeching boldface of "white people" and "others" (LOL, gotta love that code word), is that these programs do tend to benefit white men. Know why? Because despite the bleating of white men who are crying about their slight loss in social status, white men pretty much own everything in this country, and when you conduct big government projects like construction, they tend to get the lion's share of the benefits. That's what he means when he says the benefits should not simply go to high-skilled workers (i.e. white collar workers) and the construction sector, which is dominated by white male owners and workers (when they're not using illegal aliens to do their work).

I would say that white men still run everything, too, but one of the "others" is president now.

but later on he says

Criteria be set so that the money GO TO OTHERS.

Who else would be the "others" he is referring to? He only called out White Men in that speech. He did not say part of the money, some of the money, a percentage of the money. He said so that the money GO TO OTHERS.

[Brando70]

but later on he says

Criteria be set so that the money GO TO OTHERS.

Who else would be the "others" he is referring to? He only called out White Men in that speech. He did not say part of the money, some of the money, a percentage of the money. He said so that the money GO TO OTHERS.

I was curious to see the coverage of this, and I found Reich's blog (and, for Fat Pitcher's benefit, that's not Reichstag ) where he elaborated this:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01 ... thout.html

I'd suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships -- wich [sic] must be fully available to women and minorities.

Now, some people might still find that objectionable as a quota system. But he clearly was not talking about excluding white people from the stimulus. His point was that he didn't want to see high-skilled workers get a bump in salaries through the stimulus and that some of the money for construction be set aside for non-white businesses. In that context, what he said isn't very different than current government contract policies.

Anyway, lest someone think I'm BFF with the former Secretary of Labor, I'm going to drop this one.

[GameSeven]

Totally uncalled for, Teal, and you are flat out wrong. It's Jared's site, and he can certainly be the arbiter of its level of discourse.

Well, it's certainly a privilege and not a right that Jared runs the site. Despite his own opinions, I've found him to be largely fair. Given the tenor of posts late in the last thread, I could forgive Jared having something of a hair trigger this time and I think he would apply it to both sides of the discourse.

The *only* time I questioned him in the slightest was at the end of the last political thread.

I haven't moderated people for posting anti-Obama content (which has been the majority of content over the course of these threads), and I'm not going to moderate people for posting anti-Bush content.

While I could be proven wrong, my recollection has been that of reasonable balance with a decided bent towards anti-Bush animosity at inauguration.

That said, hopefully we can all take a step back and breathe deep so that we can keep a reasonable dialogue going.

[webdanzer]

EDIT: I gotta vent. We're losing a sane, well versed, and intelligent addition to DSP because of this ridiculous exchange; .

Losing Jackdog would be a blow to this or any forum. Great guy who I would fight in a foxhole with.

I enjoy Jackdog's posts too. Unless I missed something, (always possible) Jared basically gave a second warning. No ban; Jack actually posted after Jared. So why are we losing Jackdog? Is he 'taking his ball and going home?' If so, I hope you are getting on him about that Teal.

And sure, I agree that Jackdog's last shot at Jrod was very mild especially compared to other stuff flying around here lately, but most of your 'vent' was you bashing Jared's overall moderation style, Teal. That's my objection.

[webdanzer]

The *only* time I questioned him in the slightest was at the end of the last political thread.

I haven't moderated people for posting anti-Obama content (which has been the majority of content over the course of these threads), and I'm not going to moderate people for posting anti-Bush content.

While I could be proven wrong, my recollection has been that of reasonable balance with a decided bent towards anti-Bush animosity at inauguration.

I agree in that I certainly don't think that anti-Obama content in these political threads has been an easy majority. I actually quirked an eyebrow at that too. Hard to tell, though, if you count all of Teal's cartoons and such.

Everyone's perception is affected by their own biases, but I don't think Jared's moderation is at all intentionally driven by bias.

[GameSeven]

Hard to tell, though, if you count all of Teal's cartoons and such.

Something about pictures and voluminous word counts comes to mind

[Teal]

EDIT: I gotta vent. We're losing a sane, well versed, and intelligent addition to DSP because of this ridiculous exchange; .

Losing Jackdog would be a blow to this or any forum. Great guy who I would fight in a foxhole with.

I enjoy Jackdog's posts too. Unless I missed something, (always possible) Jared basically gave a second warning. No ban; Jack actually posted after Jared. So why are we losing Jackdog? Is he 'taking his ball and going home?' If so, I hope you are getting on him about that Teal.

And sure, I agree that Jackdog's last shot at Jrod was very mild especially compared to other stuff flying around here lately, but most of your 'vent' was you bashing Jared's overall moderation style, Teal. That's my objection.

Jack isn't being banned; he's just had enough. Being chided over a gentle nudge in a joking manner is ridiculous. It's just an add-up. A long one. And Jared hasn't been even handed about it. BD said as much above.

[Jared]

Working backwards...

First, my comment about anti-Obama comments were over the course of all of the politics threads over the last year or so (not just the most recently locked one); there has probably been more anti-liberal posts than anti-conservative posts. Not that I care, or not that I think there needs to be even-ness in that respect, or anything like that.

Second, Jackdog was not banned at all. I just locked a thread where there were lots of insults thrown around (especially towards JRod), and in that thread, I let stuff go and it turned into a bunch of insulting crap. At that point, there probably could have been three or four people that I banned, but instead I decided to lock the thread.

So my thought was to start fresh, and put out a stern warning on the first example of personal attacks in the new thread, which was from Jackdog. It might have been a joke; but considering that the last thread was filled with the similar personal attacks (even if made less harshly), it didn't seem like one; and if it was, it was a joke at someone's expense. For example, if I made a post saying that Teal didn't understand the political discussion, my guess is that wouldn't be considered a joke, and I'd be pilloried for it. Hence my comment to Jackdog, it was to nip things in the bud.

As for my moderation style; I try and be laissez-faire about things until I feel like I have to act. And when the posts turn into a bunch of petty arguing and insults thrown at other posters, then I don't want it on these forums. If this what you guys think is what "adult men" do, then have at it. But I don't want any part of it. And being the "owner" of the establishment, that's how I would like things here. To use the neighborhood bar analogy, I can own a bar where I let people piss in each other's faces and get into fights, or I can tell people to take it outside when that happens. I choose to do the latter. If you want a place where you can get in fights with other users about politics, then go somewhere else, or create your own unmoderated forum.

But people don't agree with me, and I understand that. Being that this is a community, in the end it's not really for me to decide. So if someone thinks that they can do a better job moderating, and wants to moderate it, nominate yourself to be the moderator and I'll put it up for a vote for forum users. If you win, then you have the keys to moderation.

Otherwise, I'm going to moderate as best I can. And as for the existence of the politics thread, if no one puts up a moderation challenge, then I'll put the existence of the politics threads up for a vote as well in a few days. I'm also open to all suggestions, whether it be in this thread, the one that PK just put up, or via PMs.

[DivotMaker]

Jack is being banned; he's just had enough. Being chided over a gentle nudge in a joking manner is ridiculous. It's just an add-up. A long one.

I don't know about anyone else, but if this is the result of the political threads, then it is time to shut them down if not permanently, for an extended period of time because posters like JD should not be feeling like they should leave...seriously, lets get DSP back to its roots and stop all the petty bickering and name-calling. I think it has been proven in thread after thread that we can all discuss political issues til we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, no one's opinions have changed and it is obviously too emotional a subject for some to discuss without getting personal and confrontational......

[bdunn13]

LAST POST!

[Teal]

NOT.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_eyFiClAzq8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[macsomjrr]

Lol. This thread is dying a slow and very painful death.