And yes, I find the righties that go around using rule 5, and spreading bullshit just as deplorable. Except there is no tax exempt “RFA”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
-
He goes on shows like “the Daily Show” and “The View” because he knows he’ll get softball questions, his balls washed, and come away looking like more of a stud than ever, and the hardest question he’ll have to answer is “what song is on your iPod?”
-
He shuns the actual press for lapdogs that won’t ask him tough questions anyway.
-
Hope & Change
-
He is black. So, this leads armies of young white kids that have been programed in school and on TV for the last 20 years to feel guilty for the sins of others, and that minorities get special treatment because racist… So all these young white liberals, because they are super more tolerant than the right, particularly those backwoods evil icky chirstians, just love Obama, because supporting him proves, just proves they are one of the good white people.
-
Hollywood and the media has also programed these people into believing “conservative” is a nasty dirty word, and only evil ignorant whites and/or evil rich whites are conservative. They’ve also been conditioned to believe any mention of anything agaisnt any group is racist if it comes from a conservative. A republican bitches about welfare, they must be racist, even though more whites are on foodstamps than other minorities.
-
Obama’s team is good, damn good at mirco targeting and feeding those targets what they want to hear. Younger women tend to be pro-life so the abortion rhetoric is toned down in ads and pitches to them. He tells latinos he’ll fix immagration, sits on his hands for 4 years, signs DREAM, and then lies to them again.
[/quote]
- He goes on the Daily Show and The View because young people and women watch them, respectively, and young people and women are keystones in his electoral college strategy. That is intelligent politics. If you’re taking issue with the fact that neither of those is likely to press him hard, then I trust you also seethed every time a Republican candidate showed up on Fox?
No, because that is an essential component of modern politics–reconnecting with the base as frequently as possible.
-
Granted.
-
Newspeak is the language of Washington D.C. “Hope and Change;” “Change you can believe in” (which means literally nothing, by the way); “Clear eyes. Full hearts. Can’t lose;” “A leader you can believe in.” None of it means anything and that’s worth complaining about, but it’s a pox on everybody’s camp.
-
I agree with you–a huge part of his “darling” status has to do with the fact that liberals found the articulate black guy they’d been dreaming about. Has nothing to do with him, though. He didn’t choose to be black any more than I chose to be dashingly handsome.
-
Agreed, but again this has got nothing to do with Obama. Hollywood went left way before '08.
-
This is essentially about pandering. I’m not even going to list examples of Mitt Romney pandering. It would feel tacky to exploit a point so obvious. Suffice it to say that pandering is, like pretty much everything you’ve listed here, built into the game.
In all, you and I agree on most of this. And I know you’re no longer arguing against this point, but I feel the need to reiterate what’s been my argument all along: that none of this is extraordinary; that it’s politics 101. You could rotate Axelrod, Messina, Rhoades, Rove, and Luntz around to different campaigns and parties and you’d barely be able to tell the difference.
And one further point re: Alisnky’s rules: they aren’t what they’re cracked up to be in my mind. Most are vague and the ones that work are extraordinarily obvious. Any campaign is going to “look” like it’s adhering to at least a handful of those rules by simple virtue of the fact that they are mightily platitudinous and simplistic. It’s like if I wrote a manifesto on how to argue on T-Nation and listed things like:
-
Sarcasm and mockery are as powerful as substantive debate.
-
Frame your opponent’s argument in your own terms. Add bits and pieces where you can.
-
When you’re taking a beating for something that’s been said a while back, deny having said it. Denial is powerful even where written evidence exists.
-
If you’re really getting pushed around, simply disappear from the thread. Live to fight another day and hope that the whole damn thing has been forgotten.
…there are a great many people who could be accused of having studied smh’s rules to win a debate dirtily.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
You could rotate Axelrod, Messina, Rhoades, Rove, and Luntz around to different campaigns and parties and you’d barely be able to tell the difference.
[/quote]
Would it make things better if I go back and edit my post to say “See Politics” rather than “See Bam”?
lol
Great, now I’m curious if I’ve done any of your dirty debate tactics.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
You could rotate Axelrod, Messina, Rhoades, Rove, and Luntz around to different campaigns and parties and you’d barely be able to tell the difference.
[/quote]
Would it make things better if I go back and edit my post to say “See Politics” rather than “See Bam”?
lol
Great, now I’m curious if I’ve done any of your dirty debate tactics. [/quote]
Lol.
As is often the case, we end up arguing essentially the same thing.
I only had a few posters in mind while writing the “dirty tactics” and I assure you you weren’t one of them.
Its a strange thing to bitch that Hollywood went left. Its not like its a deliberate strategy by some Hollywood consortium. If creative intelligent people are more likely to lean left that isn’t some strategy in play it just is what it is.
[quote]groo wrote:
Its not like its a deliberate strategy by some Hollywood consortium. [/quote]
Keep reading, it is. I believe Corola was the latest to pontificate about it.
Lol, yes, that HAS to be it. Creative intelligent people never are conservative.
Come on man, you are much smarter than this.
[quote] wrote:
[/quote]
The point is you are bitching about the way things are that isn’t deliberate. I would claim creative people in the performing arts are vastly more likely to be liberal. This I would assume you agree with since in fact you are bitching about it. So is this the result of some vast plan? Or perhaps that the culture has factors that favor it? Or simply that people that are talented in certain ways think a certain way as well? Its likely a bit of everything.
Intelligent creative people in the performing arts are vastly more likely to be liberal. I am not trying to break it into perjoratives about who is more likely to be a conservative but that is indeed a favorite talent of both sides.
I’d bet the guys from Duck Dynasty are pretty conservative though. 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Its not like its a deliberate strategy by some Hollywood consortium. [/quote]
Keep reading, it is. I believe Corola was the latest to pontificate about it.
Lol, yes, that HAS to be it. Creative intelligent people never are conservative.
Come on man, you are much smarter than this. [/quote]
Its not me that is claiming the creative performing arts are liberal and biased. Its you. So I just went ahead and assumed that we are in agreement that not only a small majority but the vast majority of people in performing arts including those that are creative and intelligent are in fact liberal.
Or are we saying that the performing arts have an equal mix of conservatives and liberals and there is no bias?
[quote]groo wrote:
The point is you are bitching about the way things are that isn’t deliberate. [/quote]
But people in Hollywood say it is deliberate. Who am I to argue, I don’t work there.
(As an aside, I can name some pretty popular movies that I know with 100% certain fact wouldn’t have been made if not for that evilest of all evil Venture Capital.)
If you said it like I’ve changed it here, I’d agree. You have too many qualifiers.
Pointing out a fact isn’t bitching.
I would imagine that yes, the tidal wave shift to the left started out with innocent undertones, but as it stands now, by first hand accounts, the liberal complex has a firm hold on Hollywood, and at this point it is some “vast” plan to keep alternative points of view out. (Doesn’t have to be all that vast, Hollywood is an insider’s wetdream, just as bad as Washington, just as hypocritical too.)
The fact M. Moore makes money and gets national distribution for his god awful films (I felt this way when I was a liberal as well) only further proves the point. Seeing as there are 100’s of other documentarys you’ve never heard of that get zero distribution due to having the wrong point of view.
No… Your use of “intelligent” over and over to talk solely about liberals is totally innocent. 
[quote]
I’d bet the guys from Duck Dynasty are pretty conservative though. :)[/quote]
LOL
I have no idea.
[quote]groo wrote:
Or are we saying that the performing arts have an equal mix of conservatives and liberals and there is no bias?
[/quote]
I would venture to guess the mix is around 70/30 among younger actors, and a 60/40 among older actors, if not 50/50.
But, from what I understand 100% are liberals, because to be otherwise you won’t get a job.
There is a bias. To deny that is to litterally close your eyes to the world around you.
Bah there is no limit of intelligence. Its not like the creative intelligent liberals have stolen it from the hoi polloi.
I am not saying that there are no creative intelligent conservatives just that most of them do something else than work in performing arts for whatever reason. So while its biased its biased from the people that make up the group the group doesn’t pick out people that are are interested in performing arts and make them liberal.
You get wall street we get hollywood that’s the breaks.
[quote]groo wrote:
I am not saying that there are no creative intelligent conservatives just that most of them do something else than work in performing arts for whatever reason. [/quote]
Lol, I know. I am/was busting balls.
Good point. Well, we fund a lot of hollywood as well.