The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[DC Al Fine]

This might very well be altogether the best/worst display of slack-jawed idiocy on this general subject:

Wow, I thought the countries of Western Europe were friends and allies of the United States. Suddenly helping us catch a fugitive guilty of espionage is some act of supreme cowardice and spinelessness?? Ridiculous. I would hope and expect the United States to do the same if a German or Austrian or Italian or whatever criminal on the run was possibly flying through American airspace. 

It's funny how Lief has become Obamahack#1

[minionofmidas]

This might very well be altogether the best/worst display of slack-jawed idiocy on this general subject:

Wow, I thought the countries of Western Europe were friends and allies of the United States. Suddenly helping us catch a fugitive guilty of espionage is some act of supreme cowardice and spinelessness?? Ridiculous. I would hope and expect the United States to do the same if a German or Austrian or Italian or whatever criminal on the run was possibly flying through American airspace. 

Given that Edward Snowden's whole point has been proving that Western Europe certainly doesn't have any friends or allies in Washington...

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

-Repeal the Second Amendment
-Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage nationwide

Another reason to be thankful that most posters here will never get elected to public office.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Yes...in spite of the great progressive circle jerk, there are still people that believe in traditional marriage regulations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes...in spite of the great progressive circle jerk, there are still people that believe in traditional marriage regulations.

To me the most interesting thing about this post is the use of 'traditional' and 'regulations' in the same context. It's like he's trying to have both sides of Weber or something.

________________

Looks like a ton of people voted on here. Based on ideology of federal government, Goldwater would have been possibly the greatest president of all-time. McCain and Romney would have done great at bringing the parties together and moderation though.

[Leftbehind]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175909.0

Just read the title.

[traininthedistance]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

I hate to agree with wormy on anything... but he's actually quite correct here.  Talking about "a few families" controlling stuff is in fact a well-worn anti-Semitic dog-whistle, whether you can (or want to) hear it or not.  Sorry, bud.

[memphis]

Mitt Romney is a Jew. Who knew?

[Leftbehind]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

I hate to agree with wormy on anything... but he's actually quite correct here.  Talking about "a few families" controlling stuff is in fact a well-worn anti-Semitic dog-whistle, whether you can (or want to) hear it or not.  Sorry, bud.

So acknowledging wealth centralisation and its effects under capitalism is immediately filed under anti-Semitism because racists use it as an argument for something else? I suppose we can't acknowledge that our politicians are lobbied by powerful interests either, lest we wish to be compared to the jews-rule-the-world crew. Don't be absurd.

[traininthedistance]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

I hate to agree with wormy on anything... but he's actually quite correct here.  Talking about "a few families" controlling stuff is in fact a well-worn anti-Semitic dog-whistle, whether you can (or want to) hear it or not.  Sorry, bud.

So acknowledging wealth centralisation and its effects under capitalism is immediately filed under anti-Semitism because racists use it as an argument for something else? I suppose we can't acknowledge that our politicians are lobbied by powerful interests either, lest we wish to be compared to the jews-rule-the-world crew. Don't be absurd.

No, you just need to find phrasing that doesn't have that sort of ugly subtext and baggage.  It's not that hard, really.

[Leftbehind]

"He celebrated Thatcher's death and he's not a fan of prostitution: I rest my case."

Do f**k off you tiresome tit.

No, you just need to find phrasing that doesn't have that sort of ugly subtext and baggage.  It's not that hard, really.

That baggage is a nonsense, and if we took that principle to its conclusion, half the right-wing arguments would be unavailable because fascists used them.

[Paul Kemp]

No, you just need to find phrasing that doesn't have that sort of ugly subtext and baggage.  It's not that hard, really.

That baggage is a nonsense, and if we took that principle to its conclusion, half the right-wing arguments would be unavailable because fascists used them.

Well...yea...

[Maxwell]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

I hate to agree with wormy on anything... but he's actually quite correct here.  Talking about "a few families" controlling stuff is in fact a well-worn anti-Semitic dog-whistle, whether you can (or want to) hear it or not.  Sorry, bud.

So acknowledging wealth centralisation and its effects under capitalism is immediately filed under anti-Semitism because racists use it as an argument for something else? I suppose we can't acknowledge that our politicians are lobbied by powerful interests either, lest we wish to be compared to the jews-rule-the-world crew. Don't be absurd.

No, you just need to find phrasing that doesn't have that sort of ugly subtext and baggage.  It's not that hard, really.

Don't bother giving him attention. He's a faux-leftist prick who wants to look cool.

FAKE LEFTIST FAAAAAAAAAKE YUR NOT A REAAAAAAAL LIBRUL LIKE ME (who supports the death penalty)

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

Some of you seem too concerned with connotations of different phrases. Intended meaning is far more important. Leftbehind clearly did not mean to use that phrase in an anti-semitic context. The argument that he should have worded it differently would be stronger if we were discussing a slogan or rhetorical phrase, rather than a meaningful comment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The "Two Hundred Families" was a major talking point of the French left at the time when it was led by a guy named Léon Blum. Just throwing this out there...

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

If abortion is banned, we'll have far more Kermit Gosnells.

Wrong.  Contraceptives and adoption will still be legal.

Democrats don't know what adoption is and contraceptives to them are only political tools.

[Хahar 🤔]

The "Two Hundred Families" was a major talking point of the French left at the time when it was led by a guy named Léon Blum. Just throwing this out there...

Yes, the two hundred families of the Bank of France are always what I think of first in this context.

(I realize that might sound sarcastic; it's not.)

[Хahar 🤔]

Go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson by law he has to pay for teens to have condoms for sex.

I was going to put that in the comedy thread

Ha. It could have worked there, too. What a bizarre non sequitur of a post.

That's pretty much what it comes down to though. Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for her to have sex. I mean a woman who wants someone to pay for her to have sex is called a prostitute.

Continuing the great tradition of posting directly into the Deluge, I see.

[Kushahontas]

Zimmerman would make a tremendous secretary of defense.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The former, but only to work as security guards and janitors.

[Paul Kemp]

Guys, calm down.  There are way bigger fish to fry than what sex JJ is.  There is absolutely no need to beat me up over something so trivial.

[Napoleon]

It's a lot less bigoted than a lot of the academic culture you see in certain circles.

[ZuWo]

My experiences in academia are limited to the German-speaking world and what I have seen and heard from certain faculties. However, even if I leave aside all issues related to the political one-sidedness at many universities I would say that Hagrid raises a valid point. Apart from the fact that petty intrigues and power struggles are widespread, there are professors who act and are treated like little kings; their assistants and students follow them like a herd of sheep. In academic fields like Indo-European studies (!) researchers are openly ridiculed for subscribing to differing schools of thought or working within certain theoretical frameworks. There are many people at university who live in the often-quoted ivory tower who have little or no interest in explaining to non-academic people why they do research in their particular fields and what the value of their studies is; on the contrary, I have overheard several conversations where students made fun of "narrow-minded" people who dared to ask them what they would do with their degrees once they had finished their studies.
I don't claim that academics are worse people than the rest of society but it would be naive to assume that they are better or less flawless than your average "redneck"; the well-educated aren't any less prone to bigotry than your average "redneck".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FF of course. Glad to see him back seeking elected office again.