macsomjrr wrote:I thought political avatars were a no-no on DSP anyway. Was that an actual rule or just common courtesy?
Well color me shocked by this comment. It really amazes me that we have people making subtle death wishes to GW, another giving a m***** f****** shout out good bye and you are worried about a little avatar, that is pretty harmless?
Side Ramble: Ever notice the people who seem to be the most anti-war/anti-Bush here, come off behaving as if they are in one?
P.S. Don't you think Jared would have mentioned something by now if it was a no-no? He has posted in regards to the topic at hand. Me thinks your reply was to simply stir the pot.
pk500 wrote:Here's a thought that hopefully will defuse this sh*tstorm and appeal to everyone in here, regardless of political affiliation: The United States of America transferred power from one man to another without a coup, without a military junta and without the storming of the leader's residence for the 44th consecutive time since 1789.
I think that's pretty f*cking cool.
Take care,
PK
43rd time you fecking liberal media commie
No there have been 43 Americans to take the oath... This is the 44th time of the oath. Cleveland still had to sworn in the second time.
But still only 43 transfers of power from one president to the next, since the first inauguration was not.
They're not a no-no; people are free to express themselves within reason. I'm not the biggest fan of political avatars/sigs, as I think they inject politics into the non-political threads (and I think that's probably where macsom and others are coming from). However, people are free to express themselves, and I don't see the need to stop that. As for Teal's avatar, unless multiple people PM me saying they're seriously offended by it (which hasn't happened), he's free to have it.
macsomjrr wrote:I thought political avatars were a no-no on DSP anyway. Was that an actual rule or just common courtesy?
Well color me shocked by this comment. It really amazes me that we have people making subtle death wishes to GW, another giving a m***** f****** shout out good bye and you are worried about a little avatar, that is pretty harmless?
Eh, that's for the FBI to worry about.
My Tesla referral code - get free supercharger miles!! https://ts.la/gregg43474
After reading over the last 5 or so pages of this thread I see a general pattern.
Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance. Those that supported Obama have spent more time pi$$ing on Bush and co. than saying anything positive about the guy they elected.
This of course does not apply to everyone, but as a whole, that's how this thread has flowed.
matthewk wrote:After reading over the last 5 or so pages of this thread I see a general pattern.
Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance. Those that supported Obama have spent more time pi$$ing on Bush and co. than saying anything positive about the guy they elected.
This of course does not apply to everyone, but as a whole, that's how this thread has flowed.
Many of them (and in the nation in general) have been deranged about Bush for 8 years, so there's no reason to expect them to stop now. As James Taranto wrote in the WSJ yesterday:
President Bush’s opponents on the Angry Left often succumbed to a blind hatred for the man and ended up mocking America’s ideals because they loathed the man who was speaking up for them. The Angry Right is susceptible to the same error now. An inauguration is a good opportunity to remember that those ideals belong to all of us, and that they endure regardless of party and personnel.”
I would suggest that the "Angry Left" is substantially more broad than it traditionally had been. To some extent it's also a function of the popular culture and the opinion-making classes, which have legitimized virulent and in some cases unprecedented personal attacks on politicians since the Clinton impeachment era and really stepped it up after 2000 and during the last 8 years. It is socially acceptable to make statements about President Bush in the media and in public discourse, that would have drawn gasps 20 years ago. Let's hope that this era is reaching an end.
Last edited by RobVarak on Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
matthewk wrote:After reading over the last 5 or so pages of this thread I see a general pattern.
Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance. Those that supported Obama have spent more time pi$$ing on Bush and co. than saying anything positive about the guy they elected.
This of course does not apply to everyone, but as a whole, that's how this thread has flowed.
Yep, that is how I see it as well. Don't know why some people continue to s*** all over Bush and Cheney as they are now gone.....I guess some people just can't let go.
Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary..../quote]
I don't see that at all. But if you say so.
As far as saying something positive, let the guy actually do something first and we can comment on it. I can say this... his dancing was ok (are we sure he's half black? .. he recited the oath excellently... His speech was eloquent, hopeful and inspiring.
Today, the real job starts. Let's see how he does.
As far as pissing on Bush... After you get pissed ON for 8 years, forgive us if we feel the need to piss back.
RobVarak wrote:It is socially acceptable to make statements about President Bush in the media and in public discourse, that would have drawn gasps 20 years ago. Let's hope that this era is reaching an end.
I don't know....once that train has left the station, it is hard to get it back in. Interesting to see how Obama is treated when things don't go the way he claimed they would during his campaign....
President Bush’s opponents on the Angry Left often succumbed to a blind hatred for the man and ended up mocking America’s ideals because they loathed the man who was speaking up for them. The Angry Right is susceptible to the same error now. An inauguration is a good opportunity to remember that those ideals belong to all of us, and that they endure regardless of party and personnel.”
Bush became hated precisely because he went against America's ideals on issues like torture and warantless wiretapping.
matthewk wrote:After reading over the last 5 or so pages of this thread I see a general pattern.
Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance. Those that supported Obama have spent more time pi$$ing on Bush and co. than saying anything positive about the guy they elected.
This of course does not apply to everyone, but as a whole, that's how this thread has flowed.
That is because Obama won due to the "anyone but Bush" vote and Obama did well to make McCain seem like just another Bush.
matthewk wrote:Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance.
As evidenced by Teal's avatar and his tagline that he "support[s] Barack Obama for NCAA commander-in-chief. (In 2012, when he no longer has a job)," I suppose?
President Bush’s opponents on the Angry Left often succumbed to a blind hatred for the man and ended up mocking America’s ideals because they loathed the man who was speaking up for them. The Angry Right is susceptible to the same error now. An inauguration is a good opportunity to remember that those ideals belong to all of us, and that they endure regardless of party and personnel.”
Bush became hated precisely because he went against America's ideals on issues like torture and warantless wiretapping.
Exactly. The fact that he helped run this country into the ground financially with his unnecessary wars (which cost us billions each month) and his allegiance to the oil companies (which have continued to post record profits in the last 6 months, while everyone else is hurting) haven't done much to help his cause either.
Feanor wrote:
Bush became hated precisely because he went against America's ideals on issues like torture and warantless wiretapping.
Bush was hated from the moment he was sworn in and seen as illegitimate by many.
That would be the same wiretapping, incidentally, that St. Hopenchange supported and for which he voted. Of course that hasn't stopped him from hypocritically condemning it when expedient to do so.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
RobVarak wrote:
It is socially acceptable to make statements about President Bush in the media and in public discourse, that would have drawn gasps 20 years ago.
A quick google search shows that Masters of War was written by Dylan in 1963. Did you miss the Vietnam protest songs that PK was referring to a couple of pages back?
The rumored reason why W left his fellow Texan hanging (on the pardon):
"Why Bush didn't pardon Clemens
There was no last-minute pardon for Roger Clemens before President Bush left the White House Tuesday, and the federal grand jury that has been examining evidence that the former Yankee star committed perjury will continue its work. Despite Clemens' ties to the Bush family, Washington insiders said in recent weeks that a pardon was unlikely. One reason revolved around race. Barry Bonds' perjury trial is scheduled to begin in March in San Francisco. Olympic track star Marion Jones, who served a six-month prison sentence for lying to federal investigators and check fraud, unsuccessfully sought a pardon. Bush would have ignited angry protests if he intervened for Clemens but not for two prominent African-American athletes. Bush did get involved in the Clemens investigation, he would have raised questions about his own, albeit indirect, role in Major League Baseball's steroid scandal. Bush was the the managing general partner of the Texas Rangers when Jose Canseco claims he taught his teammates about performance-enhancing drugs."
matthewk wrote:Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance.
As evidenced by Teal's avatar and his tagline that he "support[s] Barack Obama for NCAA commander-in-chief. (In 2012, when he no longer has a job)," I suppose?
Of course you don't quote his whole post which includes the following:
This of course does not apply to everyone, but as a whole, that's how this thread has flowed.
RobVarak wrote:
It is socially acceptable to make statements about President Bush in the media and in public discourse, that would have drawn gasps 20 years ago.
A quick google search shows that Masters of War was written by Dylan in 1963. Did you miss the Vietnam protest songs that PK was referring to a couple of pages back?
Artists have always operated on the margins, justifiably and appropriately free to say whatever they want. Political cartoonists and artists in all media have always operated around the margins....as they should.
I'm talking about what passes for "civil discourse." You certainly couldn't walk into a room full of people in 1963 and say, "Thank God that warmonger Kennedy finally caught the bullet he deserved." If that hand grenade in Georgia had been live, or if that shoe in Baghdad been a weapon, you would've seen people unhesitant to be so brazen about Pres. Bush. One can only imagine the number of posts that would've had some variation on, "Naturally, this is a tragedy but...".
Tangentially, Masters of War is an absolute farce. It's one of the nadirs of Dylan's early ouevre, a virtual caricature of the 60's protest song, ham-fisted and silly.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Interesting article about the challeneges the US faces in trying to use monetary policy to help fix the economy with the official interest rate down to almost zero.
GTHobbes wrote:Exactly. The fact that he helped run this country into the ground financially with his unnecessary wars (which cost us billions each month) and his allegiance to the oil companies (which have continued to post record profits in the last 6 months, while everyone else is hurting) haven't done much to help his cause either.
Wars? Plural? Are you saying that Afganistan was unnecessary? I can see the argumant for Iraq, but what other unnecessary wars did he start?
Where is your point of reference for oil comapnies still recoding record profits? Oil has dropped from $147 to about $35 a barrel. I have not heard one word about "record profits" since the summer.
