Comments | oberstgreup: “No president has ever had that happen. Ever."

oberstgreup

“No president has ever had that happen. Ever."

Sep 10, 2009 15:55

Oh. Really?

It seems that, once again, there's a lot of selective, collective amnesia going around today.

"But... b-b-but... That's different!" (Always the last refuge of those with no argument.)

Right. Cause, you know, it's not like it ever got ugly or personal like this back then ( Read more... )

Comments 38

kat1031 September 11 2009, 01:03:41 UTC

Bush got booed. So did Clinton and Bush I and Obama during the State of the Union.

No Member of Congress yelled insults.

The guy is apparantly a racist dick and the person who gave the Republican rebuttal is a birther. Don't the Republicans have anyone sane left?

oberstgreup September 11 2009, 23:33:31 UTC

No one yelled insults at Obama ( ... )

kat1031 September 12 2009, 04:46:13 UTC

Racism is a moral offense.

Read about your guy.

ajohnymous September 13 2009, 07:07:13 UTC

It's amusing how you use the term 'racist' as a medieval inquisitor might use the word 'heretic' -- as if such a charge, even if totally true, would somehow invalidate any criticism such a person might offer.

Thread 15

greycat September 11 2009, 03:41:57 UTC

Boos and "nos"" are different than "You're a LIAR!". I find boos and nos perfectly acceptable, though it if the whole of congress was more like the House of Commons, I'd actually like that more. The fact of the matter is the guy called him a liar DURING the speech on the FLOOR. Dems did not do that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

oberstgreup September 11 2009, 23:02:25 UTC

He didn't say "You're a liar."

greycat September 11 2009, 23:04:50 UTC

I'm sorry. "you lie"

Same damn thing.

oberstgreup September 12 2009, 03:01:36 UTC

So he said the President was lying and shouted at him during his speech, and the Dems implied Bush was lying and shouted during his speech. It's a fairly minor difference of degree.

The trouble is, the reasoning you're using is exactly what the Obama haters do to justify everything they say or do. It's all rude and it's all out of line. Splitting hairs over who was ruder on any specific occasion or justifying it on the grounds that the other side started it or is evil incarnate only add to the problem.

I will say I admire Obama for maintaining decorum in the face of all of it.

Thread 5

ajohnymous September 13 2009, 07:35:51 UTC

I'm not much of an expert on the history of political speeches. I can't help but wonder then if most speeches in the past typically started with 5+ minutes of glad handing, back slapping, and incessant grinning. I'd also wonder how much past speeches used blatantly antagonistic language such as, "bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost" and "cynical and irresponsible.... a lie, plain and simple."

I'm all for civility in the face of intelligent discourse. However, in the face of mostly emotional spell-weaving, I hardly take exception to someone attempting to break the spell. I wouldn't mind to hear a "you lie" after a "they hate us for our freedom", just like I wouldn't mind to hear it after a "I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business".

oberstgreup September 14 2009, 01:24:53 UTC

I agree that parts of his speech were deliberately inflammatory, but the proper way to respond to that is to wait until he is finished and address it in the response. Miss Manners often tells us that the rudeness of others is no excuse for being rude in return.

(Of course, in a more rational society one could expect the news media to comment on such inflammatory and divisive rhetoric, but I think everyone must realize by now what a foolish hope that would be when it comes to his Holiness.)

Also, I think there's a lot to be said for showing a special respect for the office of President regardless of what one thinks of the occupant. He is, after all, our head of state, the embodiment of American sovereignty. But then that sort of respect is exactly what the left has been tearing down for 40-some years and more than ever the last eight, so to hear them invoking it now is equal parts hilarious and disgusting - even if they are correct.

kat1031 September 14 2009, 18:10:28 UTC

You don't think that Sarah Palin's death panels nonsense is "deliberately inflamatory"?

What about the LaRouchies and the Teabaggers?

Your ODS is showing.

oberstgreup September 15 2009, 00:36:53 UTC

First, why do you insist on turning everything into an infantile "He did it worse!" match? Who said it wasn't? But we aren't discussing the reaction to a Palin speech.

Second, check your labels - LaRouchists are a Dem offshoot, and, to the limited extent they fit on the mainstream political scale, more liberal than conservative.

Finally, "teabaggers" is just another example of the sort of potty mouth that got us here to begin with. Do I go around referring to liberals as "felchers" or "cocksuckers"? Would it improve the tenor of the discussion if I did?

Thread 18