Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Facts are not evidence, to some 25
Hank Aaron equated Republicans who oppose President Barack Obama's policies to the KKK.
Aaron implied that conservatives are racists who now wear "neckties and starched shirts" instead of hoods.
In an interview with USA Today's Bob Nightengale on Tuesday, "Hammerin' Hank" lamented that the country has not progressed far enough on race relations, saying that though the nation has a black president, "President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he's treated."
Correlation is not causation, however; the evil Republicans could have been after Hank with the Orbital Mind Control Lasers and forced him to say that.
Also, a vast swath of public figures elected and otherwise who make idiotic statements does not a conspiracy make.
Let's just not go there.
Hank Aaron was ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only one talking about Hank Aaron's status as a politician is you. I'm not sure what your point is, either. Maybe you're just continuing a different argument in a place where it doesn't belong.
I would rather have remained ignorant about his remarks, because he seems like a pretty decent guy (and a hell of a ball player) otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
In case I was not clear, I do not consider Hank Aaron to be a politician. Smtity, however, does.
Maybe you're just continuing a different argument in a place where it doesn't belong.
Smitty placed
Re: (Score:2)
I'm familiar with smitty and how he writes. And he's absolutely correct that the official response of the Democratic Party is racism accusations, though they've diversified their fallacious shrieks lately by blaming the Koch brothers.
But I don't see that smitty considers Aaron to be part of the Democratic Party. That still seems like a fiction you've created in order to have a nice straw man to beat up on. Can you see the difference between noting that official Democrats say something and that others say
Re: (Score:2)
And he's absolutely correct that the official response of the Democratic Party is racism accusations
Can you show an example? I have been asking smitty for examples and so far he has repeatedly failed miserably on that. I'm not saying that it is impossible for it to have ever happened, but he has yet to show a single example of an actual politician from the Democratic Party calling someone racist only because they criticized President Obama. Just because some guy who works for MSNBC said it does not mean that it means anything in reflection of the party itself.
But I don't see that smitty considers Aaron to be part of the Democratic Party
Smitty brought up this example in respons
Re: (Score:2)
How about the leader of the party [bloomberg.com], or maybe the chair of the DNC [usnews.com] or Senate Majority Leader [washingtontimes.com]? Are those examples official enough?
That was after a really quick search. I can also find stuff about water being wet, if that would help. I would add that smitty's examples of non-official Democrats point out how much worse it is than simply professional partisans (though probably MSNBC should be included there) using such ridiculous arguments with straight faces.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, let's look at your examples and see if they work.
How about the leader of the party,
Here you have Obama talking about his own approval rating. This is a response to public opinion polls, but not a response to som
Re: (Score:2)
This is the closest I've ever seen you come to saying, "I was wrong," when you clearly are, so I'll consider this a victory. How do you think Democrats respond to Republican ideas? Appeals to identity politics are most of what they have. "Racists!" "War on Women!"
The Reid money quote was further down in the article:
Mr. Reid, though, said Republicans’ opposition was based on worries that Mr. Adegbile would be too effective at the Justice Department. He accused Republicans of trying to prevent some people from voting and said Mr. Adegbile would have stopped those efforts as head of the civil rights division.
I guess you'd try to weasel out of this one like you did for welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
The Reid money quote was further down in the article:
Mr. Reid, though, said Republicansâ(TM) opposition was based on worries that Mr. Adegbile would be too effective at the Justice Department. He accused Republicans of trying to prevent some people from voting and said Mr. Adegbile would have stopped those efforts as head of the civil rights division.
Where, exactly, was his actual quote? You quote
Re: (Score:1)
Oof! All this chatter in the outfield while people are siphoning off 83 bil every month, for how much longer now? Yes, racists and loonies were drawn out in order to associate all dissent with them. Yes it is intentional, and yes it's working beautifully as these JEs and comments so brilliantly illustrate. The producers, directors, and of course the actors (most of which go unpaid) of this little play deserve a standing ovation. The fact is that Obama is a typical, regular politician who has not significant
Re: (Score:2)
If there is anyone I take less seriously than damn_registrars, it is Harry Reid. He actually said the Koch brothers "are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."
Oh, I can think of someone far more un-American than they are. Looking right at you, "Senator."
Is there a bigger asshole in politics than Harry Reid? OK, Alan Grayson ... I mean someone with power and importance, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Clinton. Pick either one.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Not even close. Neither Clinton is half as much of an asshole as Reid. They just seem worse because they were in the White House.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of elected officials. But yes, I still would put him below Reid, but probably closer to .8 or above, both because of his policies, his lies that the policies he attacks are racist, his race-respective enforcement of policies, his refusal to accept the valid oversight of Congress, his lies about Fast and Furious, his responsibility for the death of Paul Walker ...
Ohwait.
But still, the other stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, so Reid is an asshole. Find another way of acquiring the kind of power he has, especially in the absence of charisma. I will bet you a dollar you can't. It is a prerequisite of the job. If you can't handle it, you will be washed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, so Reid is an asshole. Find another way of acquiring the kind of power he has, especially in the absence of charisma.
George Mitchell did it. Bill Frist did it. Mitch McConnell did it.
I am not saying they were never assholes behind the scenes ... I am saying, they are not nearly the assholes in public that Reid constantly is. The guy tells baldfaced, defamatory, bullshit lies to the public pretty much every time he opens his mouth in front of a microphone.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that he is an asshole of the worst kind, determined by his voting record and the people that own him, but you're focusing on a personality disorder and his public appearance. Mitchell, Frist, and McConnell are owned by the same bunch, so they are no better.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Someone who regularly gets up in front of the American people and lies about his political opponents to advance his interests or to harm the interests of his opponents ... that makes him worse. Absolutely and significantly.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, it's just a show, but believe what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think slandering Americans is NOT worse than NOT slandering Americans.
Oooooooo K.
Re: (Score:1)
Words mean nothing, and can be safely ignored.. I concern myself with what they do... Since you apparently place more importance on words than actions (as illustrated by the fact that you have picked sides), and any effort to convince you otherwise would be futile, further discussion on the matter is illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
Words mean nothing
False. It's true that words have no inherent meaning, but people have meanings for those words; or, put another way, those words mean things to people. This is obviously and nearly self-evidently true, and it is also clear that you believe it to be true.
[Words] can be safely ignored.
False.
I concern myself with what they do.
And the words they use actually have consequences. The people do things through those words. In this case, they continue to disinform and polarize the electorate to strengthen their own positions. That should concern you, since it is what they do.
Re: (Score:1)
[Words] can be safely ignored.
False.
How so? You can't prove that. Words only have power that people give them. You just said that yourself.
It can be safely determined that a politician's public statements normally are not true, and can thus be ignored. When you want to know their intentions, you look towards their record and who finances them to influence their votes. Nothing else is relevant. They are expected to lie. Elections are not won by telling the truth. They are as predictable as you are in your fondness for the accusation. Your cred
Re: (Score:2)