Joe biden Effigy

[durangodawood]

....It's why we had to leave the gold standard. And that, BTW, is what doomed us. It made our money "fiat" money. Fiat money always collapses.
.....

As Candice Owens says, "Life is hard. Wear a helmet."

Its the kind of sentiment you can trot out no matter what objection anyone throws up to the behavior of others, or even yourself. and thats why its so irritatingly worthless.

Gold would have tanked us sooner. So we got a few more decent decades. And at least theres a chance to keep the thing afloat if we can behave well politically. I realize we arent good at that. (On the other hand, maybe a super low growth or stagnant economy would have been better for everyone on balance?)

I see other concrete threats.
1. demographic decline of the great economies and the ensuing pressure toward political extremism.

2. Nuclear exchange (largely and unfortunately backburnered as a concern since the cold war "ended".)

3. Climate change threats to the worlds highly populated coastal regions. As well as rapid shifts beyond what agricultural resilience can adapt to. There's the obvious regional economic and health impacts. But dont forget about the political and migration pressures that will result.

 

[rambot]

No. I just disagree with your assessment.

It wasn't an Assessment so much as it was a statement of fact.

Gender is not how you had defined it.

 

[SimplyMe]

I like to watch his videos, but mostly for the comic relief. He is a comedian, of course. Like George Carlin before him, he sometimes brings up some good cultural comentary in his humor and sometimes misses the mark. i.e. his bias gets in the way. Meanwhile, none on the left can hold a candle to the likes of Candice, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Klaven, et al. And I've never seen anything on the left that can compare to the excellent work being done by Sky News.

And finally, I compare the left's "The View" with the right's "The Five" and it's like comparing college professors in the latter to kids in preschool in the former. It's laughable, the different use of the brains and logical thinking in the two different shows.

I've said for decades that the primary argument tools of the right are
1. Ad hominem attack
2. Projection
3. Deflection

And in the last couple of years another has been added:
4. Gaslighting

Don't get me wrong, everybody is guilty of all these things from time to time, but it is the left's MO. I was on a forum a few years ago that had a no-holds-barred policy. I enjoyed it because I am strong conservative, and about 80% of the posters there were strong left. That is actually where I came up with the list above. Anyway, they changed their policy and banned personal attacks (ad-hominem). A funny thing happened. About a third of the leftists ended up permabanned. And watching it unfold was downright comical. The rule was created because they were embarrassing themselves and the site moderators and those of us on the right were tying them in logical knots, increasing their profanity and name calling. Eventually the site settled down and, though it was still heavy leftist, it was much more fairly populated.

Oh, and one or two conservatives were also permabanned. Like I said, everybody does it, but it is the MO of the left. And you can see why whenever you watch those videos of Q&A sections of conservative speakers at universities. Charlie Kirk, Candice Owens, Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh - among others - are deadly to leftists. Yet "fools rush in" to try to take them down.

Lastly, to be fair, the reason the left is so bad at logic and arguments is because they are usually really young. What Rush Limbaugh called "brains full of mush". And we all were at one time. But most of us out grow it. It's why I like to say that if you raised the voting age to 25 (when the average human brain is fully developed), our country would look very different. But still, these kids are good for a laugh on YouTube. It's just imperative that we don't take them too seriously until their brains fully mature.

I'm sorry, I have an issue taking this post seriously. First, you talk about the "left's MO" but can't see the right does the exact same things -- they are their MO as well. As just one example, if any person on the left can be found to have any connection to George Soros then that is automatically the argument, the ad hominem "Soros." Though I have to also add that new one for the Right, the big one many of them use now is the Gish Gallop -- I know Jordan Peterson does that in many of his "debates." And it is why so many on the Right believe he is so effective.

Interesting that you talk about the great work by Sky News, when it is just the name for Fox News in the UK and Australia; and they are guilty of similar things that makes Fox News unreliable in the US. It is also interesting you compare "The View," an entertainment program with "The Five" which is ostensibly a news program -- of course there is a huge difference in the quality. They also both push agendas and manipulate the message to make help sell it; which makes me wonder if the "The Five" actually is better, as a news show they shouldn't be pushing agendas (but, of course, that is what TV "news" has become over the last couple of decades).

I also know that liberals would claim they have some great commentators, as well, even though you likely wouldn't think they were great (and just as liberals would claim that Charlie Kirk, Candice Owens, Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh are right wing hacks who can only impress the right wing). Honestly, I have issues finding people on either side that can convince people from the other side, and that don't use various techniques such as hyperbole (as well as those mentioned above) to energize the people who watch and agree with them. I think it is a bad time for politics and political commentary in the US currently.

 

[probinson]

Jon Stuart was a master because he'd make a claim and them throw up 8 examples of party members doing it.

Have you seen Jon Stewart since his recent comeback? He's been doing a pretty solid job, IMO. I don't agree with everything he says, but I appreciate that there is someone who is willing to criticize both Republicans and Democrat equally. His first monologue about the election was absolutely spot on.

Of course, some on the left didn't particularly care for his truthful assessment of Biden and lashed out at him in the media. Jon Stewart had an appropriate response to them. While addressing the leftists that attacked him, he said:

“But look: I have sinned against you, I’m sorry, it was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain."​

 

[Reasonably Sane]

As Candice Owens says, "Life is hard. Wear a helmet."

Its the kind of sentiment you can trot out no matter what objection anyone throws up to the behavior of others, or even yourself. and thats why its so irritatingly worthless.

I disagree. I've adhered to the phrase, since I was in second grade, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me." It is not worthless. It is empowering. And that's what her phrase is. Empowering. And, frankly, you can embrace it or you can spend your life as a victim. It's quite literally that simple.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I'm sorry, I have an issue taking this post seriously. First, you talk about the "left's MO" but can't see the right does the exact same things -- they are their MO as well. As just one example, if any person on the left can be found to have any connection to George Soros then that is automatically the argument, the ad hominem "Soros." Though I have to also add that new one for the Right, the big one many of them use now is the Gish Gallop -- I know Jordan Peterson does that in many of his "debates." And it is why so many on the Right believe he is so effective.

Interesting that you talk about the great work by Sky News, when it is just the name for Fox News in the UK and Australia; and they are guilty of similar things that makes Fox News unreliable in the US. It is also interesting you compare "The View," an entertainment program with "The Five" which is ostensibly a news program -- of course there is a huge difference in the quality. They also both push agendas and manipulate the message to make help sell it; which makes me wonder if the "The Five" actually is better, as a news show they shouldn't be pushing agendas (but, of course, that is what TV "news" has become over the last couple of decades).

I also know that liberals would claim they have some great commentators, as well, even though you likely wouldn't think they were great (and just as liberals would claim that Charlie Kirk, Candice Owens, Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh are right wing hacks who can only impress the right wing). Honestly, I have issues finding people on either side that can convince people from the other side, and that don't use various techniques such as hyperbole (as well as those mentioned above) to energize the people who watch and agree with them. I think it is a bad time for politics and political commentary in the US currently.

Strong, the ad-hominem is, with this one. - Yoda

Regarding the "great" liberal comentators, I've not seen any. That may be why, when Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson were fired the same day, everybody knew why Don was fired. Nobody was surprised. But everyone, left or right, was shocked that Carlson was fired. The quality of right wing vs left wing comentators is staggeringly superior. It's not even close. But when one argues against it, they always - always - fall into ad-hominem attack.

But I confess that though I've been arguing this since the 90's, it's something I just enjoy laughing at today. Because I watch right wing comentators, I was not the least bit surprised by the Zimmerman verdict, the Rittenhouse verdict, the fact that the Juicy Smalyay story was a hoax. And I wasn't surprised by the 9-0 decision of the Scotus regarding Colorado vs Trump. Nor will I be surprised by the outcomes of the other cases against trump in New York, Georgia, etc. Yet if you watched the talking heads and "experts" on the leftist sites and MSM, they will convince you that the baloney stories have solid merit.

I think one reason I'm such an outlier is that I dumped TV in 1997. I'm not being brainwashed by the MSM. I get my news from a ton of diverse sources, both left and right. Have you ever heard of Lauren Southern? She's spectacular. There is some incredibly journalism there. Same with project Veritas of old.

But as I said, I get into this stuff for entertainment these days. I can only laugh when people try to disrespect the likes of Peterson, et al. It says more about them than about the person they are trying to insult. Here is some comedy gold, that speaks to this.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It wasn't an Assessment so much as it was a statement of fact.

Gender is not how you had defined it.

These days the definition of gender is fluid. No pun intended.

We are in a period of the redefinition of words that is so rampant even the supreme court got involved. Through a SCOTUS decision they literally changed the meaning of the word, marriage. We're living in the book, 1984. i.e. I stand by my statement. I refuse the "re-education" attempt. But I'm 70 so I'm mostly just here for the show these days. Young people are going to have to live their lives with the fallout from this nonsense. And that includes my children and grandchildren.

It's why I've said, for twenty years, I feel like I'm living in Dr. Zhivago, but without the love triangle. We're headed for some very bad times.

 

[rambot]

These days the definition of gender is fluid. No pun intended.

No. It's not really. The number and types of gender is expanding but the definition is the same.

We are in a period of the redefinition of words that is so rampant even the supreme court got involved. Through a SCOTUS decision they literally changed the meaning of the word, marriage.

OK. So ooooooone.

We're living in the book, 1984. i.e. I stand by my statement. I refuse the "re-education" attempt. But I'm 70 so I'm mostly just here for the show these days. Young people are going to have to live their lives with the fallout from this nonsense. And that includes my children and grandchildren.

That's my thinking on limiting voting for old people and expanding voting of young people; upon whom will today's decisions have the biggest impact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do really enjoy the Candice Owens takedowns.

It's too easy to take down Candace Owens, but they are still enjoyable.

 

[Belk]

I didn't care when Kathy Griffin did her bit and I don't care about this. American politics has never been about decorum.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Regular, middle-of-the-road Republicans would never condone this, just as middle-of-the-road Democrats would never condone

And we need more of both.

 

[SimplyMe]

Strong, the ad-hominem is, with this one. - Yoda

Regarding the "great" liberal comentators, I've not seen any. That may be why, when Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson were fired the same day, everybody knew why Don was fired. Nobody was surprised. But everyone, left or right, was shocked that Carlson was fired. The quality of right wing vs left wing comentators is staggeringly superior. It's not even close. But when one argues against it, they always - always - fall into ad-hominem attack.

But I confess that though I've been arguing this since the 90's, it's something I just enjoy laughing at today. Because I watch right wing comentators, I was not the least bit surprised by the Zimmerman verdict, the Rittenhouse verdict, the fact that the Juicy Smalyay story was a hoax. And I wasn't surprised by the 9-0 decision of the Scotus regarding Colorado vs Trump. Nor will I be surprised by the outcomes of the other cases against trump in New York, Georgia, etc. Yet if you watched the talking heads and "experts" on the leftist sites and MSM, they will convince you that the baloney stories have solid merit.

I think one reason I'm such an outlier is that I dumped TV in 1997. I'm not being brainwashed by the MSM. I get my news from a ton of diverse sources, both left and right. Have you ever heard of Lauren Southern? She's spectacular. There is some incredibly journalism there. Same with project Veritas of old.

But as I said, I get into this stuff for entertainment these days. I can only laugh when people try to disrespect the likes of Peterson, et al. It says more about them than about the person they are trying to insult. Here is some comedy gold, that speaks to this.

I think you proved my point. I'm not aware of many leftists that believed Don Lemon was a "great liberal commentator," though I'm guessing you can find some. But trying to claim that Tucker was some kind of "great commentator" is ridiculous. What Tucker was great at was by building an audience by giving them what they wanted to hear. You do realize that when he was sued, the official legal position of his lawyers was that Tucker is an entertainer and no one takes what he says seriously. They even won with that defense.

And then there was the fact that Tucker was one of the key people who lost Fox close to a billion dollars, by pushing the "election fraud" theories -- even though he knew there was no truth to the stories he was pushing. Yes, people thought Tucker would stay safe based on the ratings he brought in, not because he was some great commentator. Seriously, great commentators don't run a show where they pitch (or allow the guest to pitch, if you prefer) that the Metric system is a communist plot. Or more recently, the great Russian grocery carts where you have to insert coins to unlock them and how ingenious they are -- despite the fact they've existed in Western countries for decades (see Aldi).

Ultimately, it is unclear what did Tucker in. Some believe it was the suit that he had sexual harassed a woman on his staff, which he was being sued for around the same time as the Dominion lawsuit and Fox wanted to cut him loose because he wasn't worth the issues. Some claim that he was fired for comments that came out from "discovery" that uncovered his text messages about Fox executives. It may well be both -- and he wouldn't be the first high profile person at Fox let go for harassment issues.

It is funny how people like those that feed into their biases and don't think those that don't feed into those biases are any good.

 

[KCfromNC]

Blame the victim.

This acting out violence (on an old man yet) along with the verbal "F*#* Biden signs is not the Great America I know.
In fact, I do not recognize it at all.

I recognize it from a certain segment of America - reference Jan 6th for a recent example. Or some of the antics at state government buildings during covid. Or driving cars through people protesting against literal Nazi groups. Or plots to kidnap democratic elected politicians. And so on and so forth.

But to your point about it being different, at least a while back when it was, say, a right-wing agitator blowing up a federal building with a car bomb there was some objection from GOP leadership. Now it looks like there are attempts like those in the OP to normalize violence against political rivals.

 

[KCfromNC]

TBF, abusing political effigies has a storied history in the U.S. I guess it's fallen out of favor in the last 50-60 years, but it still gets used from time to time. I seem to remember an Obama effigy several years ago. Whatever makes them feel better I guess, lol. It's not a voodoo doll.

I guess there was some bipartisanship from the right when they brought a noose and gallows to the Capitol to hang their own vice president, since typically that sort of energy was directed at Democrats. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that hanging was supposed to be in effigy, but I don't actually remember seeing the effigy part.

 

[AlexB23]

And we need more of both.

Agreed. More centrist politicians of both sides.

 

[DaisyDay]

Rather, I've discovered that multiculturalism is poison to a country,

In that case, America has been “poisoned” from its inception. No, multiculturalism has given us a depth and flexibility not seen in monocultures. Either way, this is who we are today and, I hope, who we will continue to be.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

In that case, America has been “poisoned” from its inception. No, multiculturalism has given us a depth and flexibility not seen in monocultures. Either way, this is who we are today and, I hope, who we will continue to be.

In a sense, yes. But it was held at bay in that the cultures didn't mix and mixing them was never enforced. That last part is the problem. It's never a good idea to force people to mingle. It has to come naturally.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

normalize violence

And obscenity, ad hominem attacks, dehumanization, just downright mean behavior. It is no wonder we have bullying and mass shootings.

 

[DaisyDay]

In a sense, yes. But it was held at bay in that the cultures didn't mix and mixing them was never enforced. That last part is the problem. It's never a good idea to force people to mingle. It has to come naturally.

The cultures did mix. They continue to mix. Are you familiar with "hybrid vigor"?

 

[RileyG]

How awful. People need to learn to respect others regardless of political opinion.