Obama spits on PA and American values in comments to SF liberals

[Perd Hapley]

Don't feed the - uh - particular individual. 

[Glock Glockler]

Ok, so if someone is concerned about illegal immigration, having their guns taken from them it must be just a reaction to their bitterness about being economically inept

[Manedwolf]

There aren't many places he could have said that and not been booed off the stage.

Oh, there are tons of places where he would be lauded: they're all in Europe, where the dollar is getting killed.

That said, he had a point.

The folks he refers to are the remnants of Natural Selection.  If they could actively compete, they wouldn't require their described binkies.  If they CAN compete, they are not threatened by such observations.   

Natural selection? Do tell.

Suppose a major natural disaster or terrorist attack hit the US and completely knocked out infrastructure, no food trucks, no power, no anything for a long time.

Who would be surviving, in SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?

The San Francisco liberals who think food comes from whichever is the trendiest restaurant of the week, who don't have any food storage, no guns, no survival skills at all?

Or the Pennsylvania small-town people with their guns and religion, a sense of community and self-reliance, who can adapt to hardship?

Well?

That's the problem with elitist liberals. They have a skewed sense of reality, and never realize that when it comes to things that actually matter in the most basic sense, like basic survival skills, self-reliance, adaptability to hardship and the ability to obtain food or protect others, they're completely and utterly useless.

In times when civilization breaks, if you can heal the sick or treat injury, grow food, shoot a gun, catch fish, hunt, dress game, build or repair things with your hands and basic tools, cook or bake, build with wood, weld, fix a vehicle, or make things with chemicals, even know how to identify plants or build a water distiller, you are useful.

I've met a lot of elitist liberals who have none of those skills, nor the mental adaptability to do anything but their meaningless "academic" or "art" tasks, everything else comes from someone else. And they would be nothing but useless baggage in any group of survivors.

I wonder if they'll ever realize that.

[Ezekiel]

Well, Red Dawn could become reality, but I doubt it.  The "skewed sense of reality" belongs to those who believe it is likely or, worse, that it is occurring.  They're the aluminum-foil hattery, right-wing, radical, and cold-dead-fingers nutjobs who actually romanticize such "A Country Boy Can Survive" dogma.

Sure, I am from Oklahoma.  I can do the vast majority of the crap mentioned.  But lets not pretend it prepares one for any society that hasn't been bombed back to the Stone Age.  Such folks are perfectly prepared for life in 1860!  We're not going back there anytime soon.  In the society of today, if you require those skills to live, it's only because you haven't any others.  And so, history passes these folk by, their only remaining hope being to pray for a post-Apocalyptic society wherein they, and their idols, become relevant again.

Hence, the bitterness.

I wonder if they'll ever realize that.

[Manedwolf]

I guess you've never talked to anyone who survived Katrina, then.

At this point, I'm inclined to agree with Fistful as to what you're trying to do. Whatever. Go navel-gaze. If something bad happens, mommy government will always be there to save you.

[Ezekiel]

Just a difference of opinion, and those folk knew Big K was coming...

They CHOSE to remain, be under-insured, live in a flood area, etc.  Sympathy?  Sure.  Consider them Rocket Scientists? Uh, no.

I think I've been here long enough to not be trolling.  (sigh)

[MechAg94]

I know you aren't a troll.  I think he had a point, but it was him as a leftist liberal talking to leftist liberals and he obviously looks down on rural people.  Personally, I think it just means he is a city boy who has no idea who rural people are or what they think.  I doubt he is the only one either.  He needs to understand that there are a lot of people who live in/near cities who came from those rural towns who don't appreciate the comment either.  It is almost analogous to the "Nobody I know voted for him" comment.  He needs to get out more if he wants to win a nation wide election. 

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

From my earlier post of Thomas Sowell's article. 

[Perd Hapley]

I think I've been here long enough to not be trolling.  (sigh) 

Is there a time limit now? 

[wooderson]

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Sowell is remarkably dishonest. I would say it's risky banking one's reputation on an uncritical audience, but it seems to have worked out well for him so far.

[MechAg94]

So Marx was your buddy so you know he is lying?  Please explain yourself further. 

I find it interesting that you can't disagree with him without 1) calling him a liar, and 2) calling all his readers ignorant.  It fits with the posts I have seen from you in the past.

[wooderson]

Seeing as you only have to look up one post, you could at least respond to what I said, rather than inserting words for me.

I'm no scholar on Marx, but I know the letter that line is from (it's available online). Presumably Sowell does as well, if he's quoting it - which makes him dishonest (not 'a liar'), yes. Or he doesn't know the context of the quote, jacked it from elsewhere, and used it for his own purposes because it sounded damning for Obama. This, too, would make him dishonest.

And I called his audience "uncritical," not "ignorant." Which I stand by - Sowell's been quoted on hundreds of right-wing blogs and forums now - not one person seems to have bothered to look at what he references to see if it holds up to basic examination.

[Sergeant Bob]

Here we go again, arguing what the meaning of "is" is.

[MechAg94]

Ah yes, dishonest also includes cheating, deceiving, and fraud as well as lying so I guess you are right....well...not really.   

Since the quote was part of his opinion about what liberals actually think of the working class, please provide a more expanded Marx quote to show he is wrong.  Referring to letters that are "easy" to find is pointless. 

Regardless of that, it doesn't change his 'opinion' or its accuracy in reference to Obama and other modern leftist liberals. 

[wooderson]

Ah yes, dishonest also includes cheating, deceiving, and fraud as well as lying so I guess you are right....well...not really.

Read your statement again. Look for words that start with 'd.'

Since the quote was part of his opinion about what liberals actually think of the working class, please provide a more expanded Marx quote to show he is wrong.  Referring to letters that are "easy" to find is pointless.

If you actually care to assess the honesty of Sowell's statement, you can look up the letter without much trouble. Sowell has, after all, provided a quote to Google.

If you're unwilling to do that, I assume you're not interested in loking at Sowell's argument critically.

Regardless of that, it doesn't change his 'opinion' or its accuracy in reference to Obama and other modern leftist liberals.

I didn't say anything about his opinions in general - I just pointed out the dishonesty of that particular argument.

[wooderson]

Now that I got that critical line in... it's not even a reference to the 'working class' as a whole, but to parties claiming to represent the working classes.

"Just as the bourgeois party in Prussia discredited itself and brought about its present wretched situation by seriously believing that with the New Era the government had fallen into its lap by the grace of the Prince Regent, so the workers party will discredit itself even more if it imagines that the Bismarck era or any other Prussian era will make the golden apples just drop into its mouth, by grace of the king. It is beyond all question that Lassalles ill-starred illusion that a Prussian government might intervene with socialist measures will be crowned with disappointment. The logic of circumstances will tell. But the honour of the workers party requires that it reject such illusions, even before their hollowness is punctured by experience. The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."

A statement of political strategy. A 'working class party' that is co-opted by the Prussian authorities is 'nothing' - ineffectual and doomed to failure.

Pretty sure we've seen similar arguments concerning the Republican Party and its need to represent conservatism or defending America, not caving to the Islamo-lovin' liberals, etc.

[MechAg94]

Thanks for posting the bigger quote.  You should have done that the first time.

[wooderson]

And just for kicks, the entirety of the Shaw quote.

"We have to confess it: Capitalist mankind in the lump is detestable. Class hatred is not a mere matter of envy on the part of the poor and contempt and dread on the part of the rich. Both rich and poor are really hateful in themselves. For my part I hate the poor and look eagerly to their extermination. I pity the rich a little, but am equally bent on their extermination. The working classes, the business classes, the professional classes, the propertied classes, the ruling classes, are each more odious than the other: they have no right to live: I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves. I do not want any human child to be brought up as I was brought up, nor as any child I have known was brought up. Do you?" (emphasis mine, though the un-emphasized last sentence is the key.)

I would say that the passage is markedly different in orientation than the base hatred of the working-class alleged by Sowell.

I would characterize such a vast difference as dishonesty (deception) on the part of Sowell. He knows his audience doesn't care to check his sources. And he knows that when his nonsense is published in a newspaper, no one is going to publish the letter to the editor correcting his dishonesty. It takes a lot of space (as we've seen here) to correct his deceptive statements - the guy who gets in first with the bigger lie wins.

[MechAg94]

Can you post the links since you have them up? 

[wooderson]

Shaw

http://books.google.com/books?id=ys13gZliXFAC&pg=PA456&lpg=PA456&dq=%22I+should+despair+if+I+did+not+know+that+they+will+all+die+presently%22+-Sowell&source=web&ots=3laVsTQ_in&sig=gbN56yTuYHA3CwJuep2BEM8VTpM&hl=en

Marx - letter within a letter, here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_02_18.htm

[MechAg94]

The larger quotes do essentially say what he intended, they just say a good bit more as well. 

[wooderson]

Really?

"Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.""

Except that Bernard's "detestable people" consisted of everyone on Earth. Sowell's insinuation is that they were part of a select group singled out for distaste. Likewise, the sentence he quotes about wishing for 'them' to die is about, again, everyone on Earth.

You don't see that, or you're simply giving Sowell a pass because you agree with his broader point?

"Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda."

Except, as you've read, Marx's 'nothing' is a reference to the power and effectiveness of parties, not a statement of disapproval when the 'working class' disagrees with him. ('They are nothing to me' being the direction Sowell wants to point toward.)

Again, do you not see this, or are you giving Sowell a freebie for being on the right side?

[Ezekiel]

I think I've been here long enough to not be trolling.  (sigh) 

Is there a time limit now? 

For scapegoats?

[roo_ster]

Here we go again, arguing what the meaning of "is" is.

Too many po-mo lit crit courses, I suspect.

"Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.""

Except that Bernard's "detestable people" consisted of everyone on Earth. Sowell's insinuation is that they were part of a select group singled out for distaste. Likewise, the sentence he quotes about wishing for 'them' to die is about, again, everyone on Earth.

Sowell & GBS:

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

See that part about 'included the working class among the "detestable" people?'    It is pretty clear from GBS's quotes and Sowell's surrounding verbiage that GBS considered the working class a subset of the set of folks who "have no right to live."  I think Sowell read, understood the context and conveyed it accurately and that you are the one using <d-word_of_choice>.  Or have merely not understood his written words.



Sowell & Marx:

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

A statement of political strategy.

wooderson, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Marx's life is strewn with examples of both contempt for human beings not useful to him and comment on how to implement his particular policies in his particular framework.  The disgusting little cretin even had the audacity to denounce socialists who were getting actual results, relative to his navel-gazing & ineffectual theorizing.

As to the sentence in question, it serves to illustrate both Marx's belief that non-Marxist socialist movements are doomed and Marx's belief that working class members on that track are worthless to him & his goals.

It is a wonder that anyone wit two wits to rub together ever took Marx and his never-been-in-a-factory *expletive deleted*ss seriously. 

[wooderson]

Too many po-mo lit crit courses, I suspect.

No, a basic understanding of English. "Dishonest" and "liar" are not the same word. Nor are "ignorant" and "uncritical" - these two are particularly divergent.

See that part about 'included the working class among the "detestable" people?'    It is pretty clear from GBS's quotes and Sowell's surrounding verbiage that GBS considered the working class a subset of the set of folks who "have no right to live."

You, apparently, didn't read the passage.

Shaw, first and foremost, isn't arguing that anyone "has no right to live."

And second, "the set of folks" in question is everyone. The working class are not singled out among a group of undesirables - Shaw's rhetorical point is that in the context of late-19th century capitalism, society is FUBAR and we are all less because of it.

I note that you don't quote the entire passage either: "The working classes, the business classes, the professional classes, the propertied classes, the ruling classes, are each more odious than the other" - once again, my basic proficiency with the language informs me that this would make "the working classes" the least odious.

wooderson, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Given the context of the statement - you know, the meaning - the "two concepts" are "mutually exclusive," because the "concept" proposed by Sowell doesn't exist. It doesn't take someone with "too many po-mo lit crit courses" to read his words. There is no reasonable interpretation of them that aligns with Marx detesting the "working classes" in any way.

As to the sentence in question, it serves to illustrate both Marx's belief that non-Marxist socialist movements are doomed and Marx's belief that working class members on that track are worthless to him & his goals.

You're almost right, though your reading of rhetoric is inept. "Working class parties on that track" are worthless to him. This is made clear - Marx could not possibly reference political parties and movements more often in one paragraph.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Give it up, wood.  It's painfully clear that you're grasping at straws trying to discredit a man who you disagree with. 

Sowell's quotes of Marx and Shaw were accurate enough, as far as they go.  No amount of your hair-splitting will change that.  And even if they were inaccurate, what of it?  It wouldn't lessen the validity of Sowell's main point appreciably.

If you want to discredit Sowell, come up with a real reason.  Give a sound argument why his main thesis was wrong.  Don't pull a couple of his quotes and pretend that they're taken out of context and thus "dishonest".