Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

45% approve of Obama's handling, 48% disapprove of Romney's comments. In other words, the exact number of people who will vote for Obama no matter what.

Are you really saying here that 45-48% of the electorate will vote for Obama no matter what? If that were actually true, the election would be a foregone conclusion -- even more so than I think it is.

I think you're mistaken here, though. I don't think the no-matter-what Obama voters number that high. I'd put them at no more than 30% intuitively, but I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yeah. Nanny nanny boo boo back at you. I'm sure you can't conceive of someone whose entire self-image and identity isn't wrapped up in the fortunes of some politician or political party, which explains the bizarre and childish nature of your post. To the left, politics is their religion, government is their church, politicians are their High Priests, and Obama is their Messiah. They don't even understand that everybody else isn't like them.

Anger and projection.
I see.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Anger and projection.
I see.

Yes, projection...although I waver between thinking it's an unconscious psychological disorder common to the left, or a conscious tactic. Maybe they are aware of all of their negative traits, and intentionally try to tar those they have deemed their enemies with the same traits in an attempt to level the playing field and muddy the water. But it happens so much that it is certainly at least a reflex at this point. It's kind of amusing watching them twist themselves into knots when they try to accuse libertarians of being authoritarians, for example.

I think the simplest way to put it is that they have a certain mindset, and everybody they know is the same, so they assume everyone else is the same as well. The reason why that phenomenon happens on the left is because they have made it nearly possible to completely isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints if they choose to do so. They control the media and the educational system, and the unelected sectors of government. People who are not in the small minority of affluent white leftists have no such luxury, being bombarded daily with left wing propaganda, priorities, and world views from the media.

That is the greatest weakness of the left - their lack of self-awareness, and their ignorance of the people they're seeking to control. They're done in by their elitist cocoon.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I think the simplest way to put it is that they have a certain mindset, and everybody they know is the same, so they assume everyone else is the same as well.

Yep, projection. We can conclude it without a doubt. Case closed. Agreed?

Indeed, the left's projection is so strong that it attempts to project its projection onto others. They know they're doing it, consciously or unconsciously, so they want to believe everybody else is too. It's sad, humorous and disturbing all at the same time.

One of the best and most common examples is white leftists projecting their own repressed racism onto others. Turn on MSNBC or Bill Maher any night of the week and you'll see it on full display.

As for the Middle East, the real big picture impact on the presidential election is this: it is one of the major rationales for Obama's original election completely disintegrating. He was supposed to make the Islamic world like us and stop wanting to kill us. Four years later, nothing has changed. In fact, public opinion of the United States is worse in the Middle East today than it was when Obama took office.

The elevation of the video is now clearly a political argument of the Obama Administration. They're denying that the incident in Libya was a premeditated terrorist attack, for obvious reasons. They don't want to answer the question of why they were totally unprepared. Unfortunately for them, the president of Libya has declared that it was carried out by foreigners aligned with Al Qaeda, and it is known that the attack included RPGs and mortar fire. If your average, spontaneous protester angry about a YouTube video carries artillery around with them, it's news to me.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yes, projection...although I waver between thinking it's an unconscious psychological disorder common to the left, or a conscious tactic. Maybe they are aware of all of their negative traits, and intentionally try to tar those they have deemed their enemies with the same traits in an attempt to level the playing field and muddy the water. But it happens so much that it is certainly at least a reflex at this point. It's kind of amusing watching them twist themselves into knots when they try to accuse libertarians of being authoritarians, for example.

I think the simplest way to put it is that they have a certain mindset, and everybody they know is the same, so they assume everyone else is the same as well. The reason why that phenomenon happens on the left is because they have made it nearly possible to completely isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints if they choose to do so. They control the media and the educational system, and the unelected sectors of government. People who are not in the small minority of affluent white leftists have no such luxury, being bombarded daily with left wing propaganda, priorities, and world views from the media.

From my perspective, I have frequent disagreements with others leaning left, though you listen to us so poorly that I'm not surprised that you can't distinguish between us. The above is another example of your explaining to left leaning people how left leaning people think. Well, no. No matter how many times we reject your strawman parodies of how we think, you do not listen, you do not begin to understand how we think. You cling too hard to your prejudices.

The ability to isolate from opposing viewpoints? I fear that's common from all sides of the political compass. You are yourself as good an example as any. If one has a strong world view and strong values, one is not open to ideas that conflict with said strong world view and values. There I can agree with you, but it is mutual.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That is the greatest weakness of the left - their lack of self-awareness, and their ignorance of the people they're seeking to control. They're done in by their elitist cocoon.

While others live in Magic Pony Land, to borrow Playwrite's phrase? Again, the perception that those with conflicting values and world views are detached from reality is common. To a great degree it is true. It's just a problem with the whole human race, not just with liberals, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, evangelicals, communists, jihadists, or whatever group with strong values you'd care to name. Any who clings tightly to any rigid perspective is apt to be perceived by those living outside of that perspective as being detached from reality. Often enough, the perception is accurate.

Originally Posted by B Butler

From my perspective, I have frequent disagreements with others leaning left, though you listen to us so poorly that I'm not surprised that you can't distinguish between us. The above is another example of your explaining to left leaning people how left leaning people think. Well, no. No matter how many times we reject your strawman parodies of how we think, you do not listen, you do not begin to understand how we think. You cling too hard to your prejudices.

The ability to isolate from opposing viewpoints? I fear that's common from all sides of the political compass. You are yourself as good an example as any. If one has a strong world view and strong values, one is not open to ideas that conflict with said strong world view and values. There I can agree with you, but it is mutual.



While others live in Magic Pony Land, to borrow Playwrite's phrase? Again, the perception that those with conflicting values and world views are detached from reality is common. To a great degree it is true. It's just a problem with the whole human race, not just with liberals, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, evangelicals, communists, jihadists, or whatever group with strong values you'd care to name. Any who clings tightly to any rigid perspective is apt to be perceived by those living outside of that perspective as being detached from reality. Often enough, the perception is accurate.

That's a fair statement as a matter of general principle. However, in the specific case of the American left, there is a unique quality, which is not equally shared. As I said, they control all of the major instruments of cultural communication. They go to great lengths shut anyone who disagrees with them out of those channels. Since they live and socialize among people who think like they do, they rarely have to hear opposing views, and whenever they do, they try to bully and coerce those expressing those views into silence. The reverse is not true. Conservatives in America are continually bombarded with the world view of the left. It is inescapable.

Metaphorically speaking, the American left has a megaphone, and no ears.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Indeed, the left's projection is so strong that it attempts to project its projection onto others.

This is absolutely hilarious.

Whoever has an ear (that isn't made of tin), let him hear.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is absolutely hilarious.

Whoever has an ear (that isn't made of tin), let him hear.

It's supposed to be hilarious. And if you don't get that, the joke's on you.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's supposed to be hilarious. And if you don't get that, the joke's on you.

Well, fine, if you weren't serious, then I'll take it as humor and applaud.

Did you take me off ignore, then?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Metaphorically speaking, the American left has a megaphone, and no ears.

Everybody has a megaphone and for the most part no ears. I doubt very much there is anything you or anyone else can do to diminish the other guy's megaphone, save, perhaps, to use the ignore option. That, of course, is better understood as diminishing one's own ears.

In theory, of course, one could try to listen. One could stop explaining to the other guy how he thinks and actually listen and learn about how he thinks. One could stop claiming large classes of people think alike, read how they are arguing among themselves, and thus learn how they think and differences in how they think.

But this doesn't really seem to be your way. I'd be surprised if you tried it. You are too much trapped by your own prejudices.

As are a lot of people.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm sure that among the thousands killed on 9/11 that more than just a few also, like you, had no idea of how are diplomatic corp works every day with other government and non-government entities to protect our interests - including our lives as well as our values.

At first, I'm stunned that someone who professes so much opposition to our military involvement overseas also has so little regard for the alternative of our diplomatic efforts. But then I remember that being an isolationist is one of the key characteristics of those that live in magic pony land.

So you don't have an explaination then. Duly noted.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, and I'm sure a decade ago you'd be trying to convince us that none of your "wogs" would commit suicide by taking command and crashing their commercial planes into buildings.

I notice you never even try to explain why they decided to fly planes into your beloved skyline. It's as though you believe they just woke up one day and figured, "What the fuck? We ain't got nothing better to do."

I guess it's just something sand niggers do huh? Violence against us is "evil-doing" but violence against them is just teaching those wayward, lost sand children how to properly behave in our world. It’s a charity thing right?

I think you will find that what you call "isolationism" is actually just a few folks who have no emotional stake in the empire.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with killing people who deserve it (never have). Even then though I understand that the killed often have a story and their own (sometimes perfectly acceptable) reasons for making it onto the "deserving list". It's a respect thing. I have no particular animosity towards Arabs in general (I work with one). I simply understand that we kill them only to maintain the empire which to me is a pretty poor, even cowardly reason (certainly not worthy of "deserving status"). I can definitely understand how this might cause us to make it onto their "deserving list".

While I don't support any particular desire to saw off my infidel head, I understand why some of them might want to.

Funny thing that I've observed about war. Both sides always believe they are righteous. Sometimes both sides are. Sometimes neither.

Back on topic, Romney has self-destructed again. The surreptitious video of him writing off nearly half the population because they see themselves as victims depending on government entitlements will be the big news story tomorrow and for some time. Nice of some one to let us know what he really thinks.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Would you allow a person who was being slandered to assault the person who slandered them? No, of course not. The important moral distinction here is that speech does not create a justification for retaliatory violence.

I only brought up slander because it's the easiest counter to the "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" argument. Obviously, words have power and can be misused, and the misuse can hurt others. Unlimited free speech doesn't work. You raised some other good points, and I addressed them separately, albeit, not in terms of slander per se.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner ...

Now with to regard to slander, I think that you may have a bit of a point -- except that in order to be slander, the thing being said must a) be false and b) must cause the slandered person to lose opportunities which they otherwise would have had. In other words, there has to be a material impact stemming from a lie.

In the case of this film, there is no material impact. Being butthurt is not a tort. Moreover, some of the "slanders" in the film (like Mohammed having sex with a child) are true, and thus not actually slander.

I agree up to this point: we don't know the intent of the person/people making this incredibly stupid film. We do know that someone translated it into Arabic, uploaded it to a YouTube server conveniently serving the middle east, and advertised its existance. Was all that done by the limpbrain(s) who made it? If so, the intent was pretty clearly to create havoc? If not, then your point is well taken. The film maker(s) is(are) merely stupid. Stupid is not a crime. There may still be liabity if the limpbrain(s) was(were) in on the missue of his(their) artistic triumph.

As far as slandering the dead, this is not subject to prosecution or torts. It's moot. In any case, do we really know what Muhhamad did or didn't do in the 600s ... or care, for that matter? That others do is a sad commentary, but considering the extent they may go to defend his reputation, awareness seems to be the rational response.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Back on topic, Romney has self-destructed again. The surreptitious video of him writing off nearly half the population because they see themselves as victims depending on government entitlements will be the big news story tomorrow and for some time. Nice of some one to let us know what he really thinks.

Here's the link to the Mother Jones catch -

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Some might compare this to Obama's fubar with San Francisco donors about those clutching their guns, etc. but the people he was talking about would never have voted for him anyway. People on SS and Medicare that might have voted for Romney however will have second thoughts - at least the ones with still functioning brains.

I can't see how he survives this. People were already abandoning him over last week; this has to be completely demoralizing to the professionals running his campaign leaving them with the question of what's next? It will be interesting to see who sticks around to turn off the lights; they'll likely never get a campaign job again.

Originally Posted by Aramea

My point was only that people are charged with crimes that they don't actually commit as a matter of course. If you give someone a gun and tell them to shoot someone and they are weak enough to do it for you, then you are culpable whether you paid them or not. I am not equating them, but you implied that ONLY the killers are responsible. Technically, that is actually true, and I used to argue that very thing. The would be killer could say, "no, I am not going to do that" and the co-consiprator would actually have to commit the murder or find another patsy or let the person live. I have since come around to thinking that the weak-minded person would likely never have committed the crime without the catalyst.

Good analysis. I would only add one thing. The degree of guilt shared by someone inspring another to commit a crime is limited to the degree he actiely tried to trigger the act.

Messy, but that's why we have juries.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, we can't undo the reprehensible things we've already done. But we CAN stop doing the ones we're doing now, and refrain from doing them in the future.

If for any reason we can't do that, then we are just going to have to live with the violent (and completely justified) consequences. No, Muslims aren't justified in attacking our people overseas because some American made a stupid film saying nasty things about Mohammed. But they're arguably a lot more justified in doing that because we're over there killing them.

It's hard to dispute that. There are always reactions to all all actions ... which may be reactions themselves.

There's a good commentary in the NY Times today about the messy affairs in Lebanon in 1982. It's very much on-topic.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Largely because I'm considered responsible (thanks to my navy-blue passport) for the actions of the first, and not at all for the second. I tend to hold people who claim to act on my behalf to a higher standard than people who don't.

What was it that one book of yours said about motes and neighbors' eyes? It was a pretty good line, that one.

Occassionally, you hit a strong high note. This is one of those times.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In other words, you have a double standard. I wonder, does it apply only to Al Qaeda or also to Saddam Hussein? Was he a poor, innocent "brown person" unjustly persecuted by the evil, racist United States?

So you don't hold the US to a higher standard yourself? Why not, if we are the uniquely good nation you and yours always insist we are? That seems to be a prety high standard to me.

After all, it was your demi-god who invoked the shining city on the hill meme, and you cite the man all the time.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Either way, he'll be depending on others to protect his freedom of speech. What a guy.

... and his anonymity. Does anyone actually know this clown?

The contours of this issue in the context of the election are starting to become clear. The Obama Administration is all over TV insisting that these attacks were spontaneous, and resulted from this video. That explanation is paper thin, for a few reasons:

1. The video had been on YouTube for months.
2. The attacks happened on 9/11/12.
3. The attackers used heavy weaponry.

This incredibly stupid and clumsy CYA attempt by the Obama Administration is going to end up being the primary foreign policy issue of the election, with the added question of their overall approach to the Middle East, which includes "leading from behind" and refusing to meet with Israel. And the added question of why so many on the left are demanding that the people who made the video be thrown in prison. The false bravado of the previous week and the pitiful desperation of attacking Romney's statements are soon going to evaporate in the face of reality, which starts with a dead Ambassador.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So you don't have an explaination then. Duly noted.

If you can recall, the original question you posed was how the embassy protects you.

Your playhouse mate, Justin, second your confusion. I responded to him here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...206#post444206

You can follow his attempt at responding that leads, as typical, to magic pony land. Please feel free to provide some kind of response a little less pathetic.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That's a fair statement as a matter of general principle. However, in the specific case of the American left, there is a unique quality, which is not equally shared. As I said, they control all of the major instruments of cultural communication. They go to great lengths shut anyone who disagrees with them out of those channels. Since they live and socialize among people who think like they do, they rarely have to hear opposing views, and whenever they do, they try to bully and coerce those expressing those views into silence. The reverse is not true. Conservatives in America are continually bombarded with the world view of the left. It is inescapable.

Metaphorically speaking, the American left has a megaphone, and no ears.

This has never been true, except at the workng level. The PTB are always part of the power elite, and they tend to be beholden to wealth. But itf it was ever true, it's passe today. The right has had 40 years to assemble a huge megaphone funded by the most reactionary element s in the country: Murdoc (NewsCorp), the Kochs (everything, it seems), and the also-ran Billionaire cast of thousands (the Coors and Mellon-Scaifes to name just two prominent families). Now you even have unlimited casino money to draw on.

... and lets' not forget that Wall Street is now a GOP stronglhold ... and they have more money than God.