Republicans seem outplayed in another showdown with the president. Too bad they don’t have his playbook, huh? Except, they do they’re just too dumb or timid to exploit it…
Obama’s playbook (written by another) says conflict is good and every crisis is an opportunity to agitate for more power.
Here are his rules for conflict resolution:
No matter how complicated or morally gray an issue, polarize it as Us vs. Them
Clearly identify the enemy by putting a bull’s-eye on his back: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalized it, and polarize it.” The president has targeted “Tea Party Republicans” â?? namely GOP Sen. Ted Cruz â?? for rebuke, taking every opportunity to demonize them as “crazy extremists” and "radicals, while knowing the media would never call him out on his own radicalism.
Mock the enemy and his arguments: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
During a Maryland speech last month, Obama cited New Hampshire state Rep. Bill O’Brien’s remark that ObamaCare is “a law as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.”
“Think about that. Affordable health care is worse than a law that lets slave owners get their runaway slaves back,” Obama quipped. “I mean, these are quotes. I’m not making this stuff up.”
That calculated stink bomb was met by a chorus of gasps and boos from the largely black audience.
Who is the author of this playbook used throughout America’s polarization? See below:
well then, somebody shouldn’t have made a fucking dumbass comment comparing the ACA to slavery. You’re evemn more stupid jf you say something publicly that you don’t expect your opponent to use to slaughter you. Here, my enemy–take my gun. I trust you not to mug and kill me with it.
Big deal. And these aren’t Obama’s plays. Theyre much older than that.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
well then, somebody shouldn’t have made a fucking dumbass comment comparing the ACA to slavery. [/quote]
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.
If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
well then, somebody shouldn’t have made a fucking dumbass comment comparing the ACA to slavery. [/quote]
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.
If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Oh no, substantively I agree with you. However, this ranks up there with “legitimate rape” in the political move spectrum. Brutus always loses because he overestimates the intelligence of his audience.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
well then, somebody shouldn’t have made a fucking dumbass comment comparing the ACA to slavery. [/quote]
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.
If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
On a philosophical, intellectual kind of level, I would argue that no comparison is off limits, and certainly not this one.
On a social, public-policy, political level, there is something that feel extraordinarily wrong about conflating a (shitty) pile of health care legislation and taxes with something that directly caused both torture and murder.
Well seeing as the last half of my response to beans was somehow magically edited out, I’m in agreement with smh on this one. That’s exactly the reason I called it a dumbass move–the political move was just…awful.
Yes, and politically, terrible. Rule of thumb: don’t say Hitler unless you’re talking about Hitler, don’t say American slavery unless you’re talking about American slavery, don’t say legitimate rape (ever). If you must mention these things, make sure the context in which you’re mentioning them directly involves genocide or torture.
Oh no, substantively I agree with you. However, this ranks up there with “legitimate rape” in the political move spectrum. Brutus always loses because he overestimates the intelligence of his audience. [/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
On a social, public-policy, political level, there is something that feel extraordinarily wrong about conflating a (shitty) pile of health care legislation and taxes with something that directly caused both torture and murder.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t the best choice of words. I just happen to see where dude was going…
Don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t the best choice of words. I just happen to see where dude was going… [/quote]
He was going for the dramatic because it’s all about rhetoric and emotions. It’s ironic in a way.
Appearing on Fox News’s Hannity, Smiley said, “The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category.”
Appearing on Fox News’s Hannity, Smiley said, “The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category.”
Appearing on Fox News’s Hannity, Smiley said, “The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category.”
And what…they would have been rolling in the money with an Escalade in every driveway under McCain and Romney?
Mufasa[/quote]
Is that the only other option? Like you can either be losing ground or living like a rock star and those are the only options?
I haven’t seen anybody really gain much ground in the past five years. Not just any particular segment of the US, but all the way around. I have seen a few small business owners lose some serious ground though.
In fact, shortly after the whole “We must tap into small businesses as our greatest asset” spiel rolled out, quite a few went under or were severely affected.
Despite the fact that there are those who believe that African Americans are a bunch of leeches who sit around making babies and buying Plasma TV’s with food stamps…the stark reality is that they always have been…and most likely will be…IN GENERAL at the bottom economically. This is independent of who is in the White House.
This is not to argue “cause-and-effect” (which FAR too many people seem to have a “answer” to; just read “PWI” for a short period of time); it’s just an economic reality.
So when someone get’s on some show; independent of their race; and says: “African-Americans have done worse under this President…”
Despite the fact that there are those who believe that African Americans are a bunch of leeches who sit around making babies and buying Plasma TV’s with food stamps…the stark reality is that they always have been…and most likely will be…IN GENERAL at the bottom economically. This is independent of who is in the White House.
This is not to argue “cause-and-effect” (which FAR too many people seem to have a “answer” to; just read “PWI” for a short period of time); it’s just an economic reality.
So when someone get’s on some show; independent of their race; and says: “African-Americans have done worse under this President…”
Then I say:
“Well NO SHIT, Sherlock…”
Mufasa[/quote]
Well that may be very true regarding the economic demographic as a whole, it is possible for there to be some net relative improvement of ssid.demographic as a result of policies, events, etc. It is also possible for the net mobility of the group to remain at the status quo, or to get worse relative to other demographics. When somebody makes a claim I do expect them to back.it up, but it is conceivable the claim is true as well regardless of spin. You can’t dismiss that out of hand.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.
If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.
Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.
If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.
So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.
If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.
Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.
If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.
So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.[/quote]
Absolutely true. Also, the ACA takes 100% of your income? Come on. You can argue the ACA will be expensive. But 100% is unnecessary hyperbole.
Despite the fact that there are those who believe that African Americans are a bunch of leeches who sit around making babies and buying Plasma TV’s with food stamps…the stark reality is that they always have been…and most likely will be…IN GENERAL at the bottom economically. This is independent of who is in the White House.
This is not to argue “cause-and-effect” (which FAR too many people seem to have a “answer” to; just read “PWI” for a short period of time); it’s just an economic reality.
So when someone get’s on some show; independent of their race; and says: “African-Americans have done worse under this President…”
Then I say:
“Well NO SHIT, Sherlock…”
Mufasa[/quote]
Agreed, but surely the ACA offering health care to the historically less well off groups counts for something?
Very true.
But once the government take all of your income, you have nothing left to defend all this freedom. And it’s only a matter of time before you lose it.
