From The Pirate’s Cove:
Hill Poll: Most Feel Obama Has Changed The Country For The Worse
By William Teach | July 9, 2012 – 8:50 am
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that most think Obama is ruining the country. And I bet some people are surprised by this poll. They might have listened when Obama said that he wanted to “fundamentally transform America” during his hopey changey run for the White House. And they might have paid attention to his background, policy offerings, and political experience
(The Hill) Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.
Amazingly, 92% of Blacks feel that the country has changed for the better, which is strange considering the unemployment rate for Blacks is 14.4%.
A bit more at the link.
The President’s re-election campaign has clearly taken an “attack Romney” message, trying to persuade a majority of the voters that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) would be bad, bad, bad! for the country, and the reason is obvious: if President Obama tries to do something really radical and run on his own record in office, he loses. His partisans try their best to explain away the President’s record, blaming as much of the negative as the can on former President Bush, but it really isn’t working: when you have to explain someone’s record so it doesn’t seem so bad, you have already lost.
And The Hill poll shows the one thing that can’t be explained away: a majority of probable voters believe that President Obama has the country going in the wrong direction. Whether that wrong direction is still somehow the “fault” of President Bush doesn’t really matter; even if it is, President Obama hasn’t changed it, hasn’t fixed it.
The President’s tactic of trying to tear down Governor Romney might work: negative campaigning has certainly worked before. But if this election is decided on President Obama’s record, if it is a decision by the voters on whether the President deserves to be re-elected, he’ll get a four-year-earlier than planned start on his presidential memoirs.
When times are tough, and they sure are because of Republican malfeasance past and present, then it is natural to expect that folks, especially underinformed folks, will blame the person in charge. Thus, this particular poll of about 1000 Americans does not surprise me. Moreover, anti-Obama forces will find glee in results like this, forgetting where the polls were this time in 2008.
Here are the results which may be more significant:
It is the centrists, the independents, who will be huge deciders in the battleground states where the voting margins will be close. Right now they are showing no strong preference in this poll.
Minorities are also an important demographic, where blacks, like here strongly favor the President, and latinos as well as shown in other polls. This is why Republicans are pinning so much hope on voter suppression to squelch these demographics, the most intensive in modern history. This strategy is all so obvious.
This poll also indicates what I have been claiming for a long time on here, that racism in American continues with little abatement, exacerbated by Republicans in their voter suppression efforts, thus fighting this racism should be a continuing concern among thinking Americans voters.
The class warfare of Republicans, on both social and racial lines, might well win them some elections, for all the wrong reasons, and to the detriment of the future of this nation.
Not only are we disintegrating economically, in spite of the leadership of a fine, fine leader, we are deteriorating due to high level corruption, as is rampant on Wall Street and with the banks.
We have JP Morgan Chase betting against their own clients, to the tune of losses upwards of $9B. We have the unregulated default swaps alive and functioning against the better interests of the American people, And we now know that banks have been engaging in manipulations of Lipor rates, betting against their customers.
Large American investment banks are still in the thick of all this, indicating that they are operating by their own corrupt rules, in spite of the concern of the Federal Government.
In other words, these too big to fail banks continue to make suckers of us all. Due to Republican congressional obstructionism, there has not been anything significant happening to counter these alleged criminals.
Does anyone think things will change if Romney and the Republicans seize power again? These deregulators will only make things worse, much worse. Even Republicans should be very concerned about this creeping corruption, cheating most Americans, and should therefore vote in support of continuing reform of our system by voting for the anti-Republicans. In that way your vote will count in terms of your own interests.
WW wrote:
Racism by whom, WW? If 92% of blacks think that President Obama is doing a good job, it shows a sameness of thinking which cannot be rationally explained by simply looking at conditions in the country — which are bad — but would almost have to include a racial component: they are supporting President Obama because he is black.
Oh, wait, what’s that you say? Blacks can’t be racist? It can’t be racist to judge President Obama positively?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Let’s face facts: no candidate would be doing well if he had had unemployment over 8% for his entire term. That President Obama even remains competitive tells us that people are judging him on something other than his job performance. His race, perhaps?
There’s something telling about your automatic assumption that any opposition to President Obama and his job performance must be the result of racism. Why, it’s almost as though you believe that blacks simply cannot be judged fairly just by looking at their performance in their jobs. After all, we know, as surely as the sun rises in the (south)east, that you would excoriate the job performance of any white candidate who presided over an economy with 8+% unemployment.
Oh, I’m sorry, that would be any white Republican candidate.
Typical PAP nonsense, repeated time and time again: The American people are either stupid or racist (or both) for not “recognizing” that Obama is doing a dandy job.
Typical delusional, fact-free Perry rant. He keeps saying the same thing over and over and over again, in spite of all the facts that run exactly counter to his rants. Hey, Perry, you want to see real racism and misogyny? I’ll show it to you. From an article that made today’s “Post of the Day” over at Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion (the site run by an Ivy League Law School professor).
So, Perry, go clean up the absolute misogynistic and racist gutter trash that is extremely prevalent in the Democrat Party.
So, now we know for sure, one in five registered Democrat voters is willing to tell the truth when asked, and the other four lie as compulsively to pollsters as they do to themselves.
And, since 92% of blacks polled say Obama has changed America for the better, we can safely conclude that Obama’s skin color overwhelmingly overrides objective reality in the minds of his fawning race-driven sycophants.
And, that’s one hell of a sad commentary on the unwillingness of black voters to see beyond race and to stand up for the right to think for themselves as individuals.
Perry spews the usual left wing lies about voter suppression, based on the racist assumption that, unlike whites, minorities are too stupid and lazy to get an ID. C’mon, Perry, don’t you get tired of peddling the same old lies over and over? Can’t you at least come up with some new lies, or, better yet, the truth?
It is the centrists, the independents, who will be huge deciders in the battleground states where the voting margins will be close. Right now they are showing no strong preference in this poll.
Fine example of brain dead. If you have had a pulse for the last three plus years, and not aware of your surroundings to form an opinion, you are either lying or brain dead.
83% of doctors show their treasonous and anti-American ways due to ObamaCare.
There isn’t a chance President Obama will run on his record. His campaign managers know full well he will lose if he does. Therefore, the only option left open to him is to go on the attack.
Democrat pollster Celinda Lake nailed it – The only way Obama can win is to disqualify Romney.
ropelight says:
July 9, 2012 at 21:40
Democrat pollster Celinda Lake nailed it – The only way Obama can win is to disqualify Romney.
BO has no scruples about lying like he has on a few items about Romney. Even though Fact Check.org has dispelled these lies, he keeps on saying them. Romney needs to get as ruthless as he was in the Primaries and keep saying everyday BO is a pathological error. But sometimes I’m afraid the Mormon in him keeps himself in check and he stops short of starting a slugfest.
I’ve know quite a few Mormons and this is how they are. One was even a “Morman Bishop” which I think equated to an elevated deacon. But if you want to go Bargain Hunting TAKE A MORMON with you. They have a second sense in saving money. You should have seen our shopping spree in Ita Wan in Seoul.
You will note, Mr Editor, and the rest of you Righties, I did not assign the blame for the racism. It is true that racism also emanates from the centuries long victims. Should we be surprised at that? Nevertheless, you all continue with your assumptions, and then attack. Are these assumptions based on your inner guilt feelings?
If anyone should feel guilty, it is you class warfare champions, warfare against the middle and the poor, against those who are not Christians, against gays, against blacks, against hispanics, against Mormons, against Islamists, against women, against Hindus, and against voters who do not have photo IDs? If I thought a little longer, the list would get much longer.
Basically you folks are against anyone who does not share your political and social beliefs. That’s who you folks are. Our editor is at least willing to have a debate, sometimes, while the rest of you attack, attack, and attack some more.
President Obama not only faces headwinds from the economy, from Europe, but also from a portion of his fellow American citizens, you extremist Republicans. The days of congeniality and working together are gone, mostly, by your choice, not President Obama’s and the Dems’ choices.
The President came up with a very reasonable approach which should appeal to every Americans, because we all agree: Continue the Bush tax cuts for one more year on those earning less than $250k per year. That would be 98% of all Americans. What could be more fair?
Then return the taxes on the 2% to what they were under President Clinton, when the economy thrived and unemployment was low, putting the lie to today’s extremist Republicans who think otherwise in spite of the facts.
This country will be much better off when we can have Republican dealing with the facts, with reality, instead of with their ideology and their myths, and willing to cooperate on economic solutions which include the American middle and poor, the 98%!!!
WW asked:
Oh, how about continuing the tax cuts for everybody? That would be more fair!
I find your argument humorous, given that you had written earlier, in the same comment, “If anyone should feel guilty, it is you class warfare champions,” and then, three paragraphs later engage in class warfare, trying to attack the top producers.
The only fair tax is an equal tax applied to every citizen/resident. Right now, about only about half our population pays taxes the rest are free-riders and worse, they’re burdens on the rest of us. Some of them even get so-called refunds on taxes they didn’t pay.
NO tax increases of any kind on already overburdened taxpayers. Each and every citizen/resident must pay their share of the cost of government.
Look at that. Perry has quit talking about that laughable “99 percent” and is now talking about that laughable “98 percent”. It’s interesting to note that “56 percent” (that would be a majority) believe the US economy has gotten worse since Obama took the reigns and immediately started blaming “not me” every step of the way. Only “33 percent” (which is a far cry from “99 percent”) believe the economy has gotten better under Obama’s (complete lack of) leadership.
And yes, Perry continues to demand everyone in the nation sinfully and willfully violate the Supreme Authority’s Tenth Commandment, just as he does with practically every breath he takes. Class Warfare, which is a willful and sinful violation of the Tenth Commandment, is an absolutely necessary tool of the Leftists and Democrats and Socialists and Obama (which is one and the same, especially since Obama was a registered Socialist as a Chicago “community organizer”). And Perry uses it extensively here, but to no avail, since we all know better.
Unfortunately, it is necessary for us now to redress past unfairnesses put upon the middle and poor by the wealthy and powerful, due to their purchased political clout.
The results of these Bush tax policies favoring the wealthy should be obvious to all but those with a jaundiced eye, like yourself Mr Editor.
Tax policies for the upper 2% can be hashed out later, but why not enact these for the rest of us, the 98%, upon which we can all agree?
You did not address that logic; instead you mocked it by laughing at it. I am not surprised at the predictable response from the right wing radical elements of the American body politic, of which you are demonstrably a member.
These tax cuts will continue to grow the economy next year, because most of those who receive them will spend them, growing the economy, and growing revenue in the end. Makes a lot of sense to me!
This is not true, ropelight, because you are considering here only federal taxes, and ignoring state and local taxes, which taken together are far more of a burden on the middle and poor, the lower 98%, than on the wealthy, the 2%.
Are you in the 2% ropelight?
The Federal Government does not operate on State and Local Taxes, so your red herring died before you even hooked it 3 years ago when you were already spouting your nonsense that nobody was buying, Perry.
There goes Perry once again fishing for personal information so he can use it or the other person’s wise decision not to feed the troll as a reason to go on another of his well-documented hate-filled attacks.
Says the “man” who has threatened others’ livelihoods and accused another of committing a felony. Both of which got him suspended from commenting here. That’s some “willing to have a debate,” eh?
John Hitchcock, I am advocating for you and yours, but to no avail!
Instead, John, you seem to want to be the sacrificial lamb.
But none of that is true, koolo, otherwise: Citation please!
Perry, I am not interested in the Satanic demands for everyone to violate The Final Judge’s Tenth Commandment, no matter how many times Satan tells me the fruit from that Forbidden Tree will do me good. And no, you are not advocating for anyone at all related to me in any way. You are attacking everything we stand for when you attack GOD the way you do, incessantly.
On the second point first, see here.
On the first point, you’re a bigger liar than our president.
Perry, THE EDITOR DECLARED IT TO BE SO. EVERYONE SAW YOU DO IT. You threatened the livelihood of one person at least twice. You were explicitly warned for doing so. You accused another of Federal Felonies. You were immediately suspended for doing so. The Editor also emailed those with admin access to be on the look-out for any socks you might try to use to avoid the suspension for threatening the livelihood of one commenter and accusing another of Federal Felonies. I saw at least one comment from you in the moderation filter after you got suspended. I left it there. The Editor deleted it. You need to quit lying about it, Perry.
I’ve let this charge go by without comment, even though I have disagreed with it from the start. But koolo keeps bringing this up, so it is time for me to challenge. Koolo, with his finger gesture, typically will not step up.
Because our Editor says something was/is true does not necessarily say that it was/is true. I frequently find my self to be not in agreement with him.
Paranoia has long been an obvious characteristic of the poor, wounded, weak Republican extremists.
Therefore, make your case and I will respond: Citation please!
Perry, 40 years from now, you’ll be living with a Hell of a lot of regrets unless, of course, you change your trajectory. Your dishonesty is mind-boggling, especially when everyone saw your threats and your accusations.
Oh, gosh. I keep bringing something up? A complaint like that from the King of Repeat? Absolutely hilarious.
You have no challenge. The case is settled. You threatened and accused, were found guilty, and charged by the Editor. You know it, I know, everyone here knows it. Your continued predilection for self-delusion and refusal of any sort of responsibility continues to prove you’re a wretched excuse for a human being.
You think Perry will really make it to age 138?
Just as I anticipated, no citations from koolo or John Hitchcock to back up their allegations. They have failed once again! That should tell you something about their character, as if this has not been demonstrably evident over time. Koolo goes of topic frequently to make this allegation, as does John Hitchcock, because it is all they have. Really weak!!!
Indeed. The posts in question being investigated and then the “sentence” invoked for the posts by our Editor isn’t proof to PAP. Yet another denial of basic reality. And yet another smear of the Editor by the loathsome PAP.
Just as I anticipated.
No, koolo, your bluff has been called, and you don’t like it one bit. Well that is just tough!
Also no, saying that the Editor was wrong about something is not a smear, except in your partisan, closed mind.
But you’re the only one who thinks he’s wrong … as guilty parties usually do. Not to mention, he’s not wrong, as anyone who exists in our reality recognizes.
I recognize what I am up against here, the only Liberal up against a collection of partisan right wing extremists who won’t give an inch even when shown to be demonstrably wrong. But that is exactly the game they/you play, koolo.
Where are your citations, so we can debate the point, koolo? You have surely chickened out, typically!
Now what possible incentive do I have (or anyone else, for that matter) to debate this very point again? Why is it incumbent upon me (or anyone) to constantly substitute for your ridculously poor memory?
Spare us all.
WW wrote:
Favoring the wealthy? The top producers pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than do other people, and you want to exacerbate that injustice. Fairness in taxation would be treating everybody identically, something you are loathe to do.
No, we do not all agree. Either taxes should remain lower, for all of us, or if taxes must be raised — something I will never support until after spending has been cut, and I mean cut to the bone! — they must be raised on all of us. I do not, will not, and cannot support the continual Democratic “Affirmative Action taxation” of treating different citizens differently.
If you agree that tax cuts will help to grow the economy, why don’t you want to see tax cuts for everybody? After all, the top producers will spend their tax cuts as well, because even putting it in the bank is spending, in that it enables the banks to lend more money.
Because you are continuing to make the charge, koolo, so that is on you. I had thought it best to move on, but not you. So now I am challenging you: Prove yourself by providing the pertinent citations, or keep quiet about it.
Now it is too late, and I’m fed up with this; so prove it, koolo. It’s now on you, so stop backing down and obfuscating, and insulting.
You are behaving like a Scientologist, koolo. Maybe this explains your behavior. Are you a Scientologist?
And on your continued asinine wife beating suggestion at me, are you even married? A happily married man would not likely speak like you do on this subject, but you do, repeatedly. And yes, as I’ve said before, I am happily married. What is going on with you, koolo? Aside from your politics, your behavior on here is very strange indeed, especially considering that you are supposedly a school teacher.
Now why should I (and others) continue to provide what we already have time and time and time again?? This is on you, not me or anyone else. Why do I and others constantly have to make up for your ridiculously awful memory?
I told you this, time and time again, too: You stop bringing up my career choice in mocking and derisive comments and I’ll cease my wife-smacking hypotheticals. Again, your memory fails you. If your memory is this bad, I suggest not hanging around in forums where memory is required.
Yeah, Mr Editor, like Mitt Romney, who paid 13% on the one tax year that he has release. Please! His rate is lower than the top tax bracket that he is in, lower than the long term capital tax rate, lower than the dividend tax rate, so how can this be. Does it have something to do with his offshore accounts. I’m just asking!
Progressive tax rates have been our norm for over a century, and we have prospered with them, like under President Clinton. In spite of this, Bush and Co. lowered them twice, and not once during his two terms did we prosper like we did under Clinton. So there goes that argument that lowering taxes on the wealthy creates jobs and provides a robust economy.
In fact, President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, and even extended them, and we are not even close to the Clinton years.
Therefore your argument against raising taxes on the wealthy, who have flourished even during this Great Recession, is not asking too much at all. They owe it to their country to contribute more to our economic recovery, to which they played a major role in causing it to begin with. That is the record, Mr Editor.
So hold hostage a tax cut for the 98%, under these current circumstances, is just ridiculous! There is just no way that you can justify this position taken by your party!
Moreover, I simply cannot understand how a middle class person like yourself can blindly accept the rhetoric of your party in this instance, especially considering that it would aid our economic recovery as well. Oh wait, maybe that is the reason for the position of your party, so you just follow along in lockstep. Is this it, Mr Editor?
Oh please! Seriously, I am amazed that a serious and intelligent individual like yourself would stoop to making this specious argument. Have your party leaders sapped your ability to question what they say, even a little bit? The banks already have a couple of trillion $$$ sitting idle, so what makes you think that deposits from the wealthy will change that? You are playing too deep and too near the foul pole in right field, Mr Editor, not to mention that you are blinded by the sun!
You have provided nothing, koolo, except to repeat the charge. Now I have called you out on it, and you have nothing to show. So the burden of proof remains on you.
No, you did not, koolo. Besides I have made not one disparaging remark about your being a teacher, which I actually laud, because I know first hand what that is all about. What I am disparaging is your constant personal attack mode on here, saying that this is not the greatest example of the behavior of a teacher. Thus, that is not disparaging your profession, it is pointing out that your attitude needs some attention. This has nothing whatsoever to do with political differences, but everything to do with deportment.
Again, it is not your career choice, it is your behavior. If your behavior improves, there will be nothing for me to say in this vein. Moreover, your wife smacking hypotheticals are outrageous, because you don’t even know me personally, or my wife. So there is no trade off to be made here. What is an example of my memory failure, koolo?
As far as memory being required, if any of us forgets something we wrote, a citation is in order to make your point. On this charge you have repeated time after time, it is time now for you to produce the evidence of my alleged offense, otherwise you are not to be believed!
I do not understand how Wagonwheel constantly uses the leftist term “Bush tax cuts for the rich”, then says he wants to continue those tax cuts for the “98%”. So which is it? Did everyone get tax cuts or only “the rich”? And if everyone got tax cuts it behooves you to stop saying “Bush tax cuts for the rich”, since they went to more than just the rich.
Why don’t you follow your own advice, abandon your left wing extremism, and cooperate with the Republcans?
Quit spreading your lies, Perry. We all saw you do it, and we don’t need no steenkin’ citations to prove it. Your own two week suspension is the proof. And, I’d you dint like the rules around here, leave, and take your lies and left wing extremism with you.
Now why should I (and others) continue to provide what we already have time and time and time again?? This is on you, not me or anyone else. Why do I and others constantly have to make up for your ridiculously awful memory?
Yes, I most certainly did. You said (paraphrase) that you “may not see things precisely as I do,” and then I thought agreed to bury the hatchet in this regard. Either you lied (again) or you pathetic memory fails you (again). Either is a good possibility.
Um, do you know me personally? You say you make your childish comments about me and my profession due to my behavior; this is precisely what I do with you. Your narcissistic “there’s no trade off” bullsh** is precisely like how you fail to take responsibility for even the smallest matter … that is, unless you have absolutely zero wiggle room. (Like when you realized you could not prove that the ObamaCare law used the term “tax.” And then it takes days for you to admit it, with the addition of being constantly called out on it.)
So, again, I reiterate: You stop mentioning my career in your hateful tirades against me, and my hypothetical comparisons to you domestic abuse will cease. It quite simple, actually.
FWIW, PAP, you admitted that “your perception of your behavior is not my perception, but the reverse is probably true as well” here. And then you said “Let us both go forward with a focus on our positions on the issues, debating those as we see fit, rather than being diverted by the personal stuff. I’m for that!”
Yet, you quickly forgot that. Didn’t you?
Yes, PAP did indeed quickly forget about that.
And lastly, because, yes, I was bored, this settles the matter of your personal threats and accusations of felonious activity.
CASE. CLOSED. Once and for all.
WW wrote:
Could be, but I don’t know, and I really don’t care. Somehow, I am not impressed by the Democratic meme that I should be outraged by what Mitt Romney has done with his money, and not by what Barack Obama has done with our money.
But you are not arguing that, are you? Your economic argument is that things were better when taxes were higher on everybody, but your political argument is that we should just raise taxes on the top producers.
No one “owes” it to the country to pay more than anyone else; the nation owes equal treatment to everyone.
Ww wrote:
You know, I actually believe you. I actually believe that you see the top producers as somehow being the enemies of working people.
But increasing taxes on the top producers won’t “aid our economic recovery.” All it will do is put more money in the hands of the government, which would just spend it, which is, of course, just what you want. Well, I don’t want increased government spending; I want government spending cut to the bone.
You have, yourself, said that lowering taxes will help the economy; you just don’t want them lowered on the very people in the best position to actually help, because you are basing your argument not on economics but on a loathing for people who have worked harder and more productively than others.
I have to admit: I sometimes find your arguments literally stunning. In a country in which hard work and determination are admired, where we have a cultural belief that anyone can succeed if he just tries hard enough, you want punish success and hard work by making the reward for hard work paying ever-increasing taxes. And, on the other side of the coin, you want to reward indolence and giving up by providing ever-more goodies for the indigent through government handouts. To call that counter-productive would be a ridiculous understatement; to call it virtual madness would be much nearer the mark.
Eric wrote:
We may very well see that put to the test, come next January.
Well Wagonwheel, your constanst class warfare screeds notwithstanding, this just in from the CBO as reported in the Washington Times.
“Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.
CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.
The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.
“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”
The tax fight has risen to the top of this year’s presidential campaign, with Mr. Obama calling for the wealthy to pay more money both to lower the deficit and fund his new spending promises.
I’m curious how you lower the deficit while “funding new spending”. Sounds like another liberal rope-a-dope to me.
BTW Wagonwheel, you do not have enough information on Romney’s investments to offer an opinion on the “hows and whys” of his tax rate. As I’ve noted before, off shore accounts are subject to U.S. tax if the money was earned here then moved off shore. Romney may have 30-40% of his investments in tax free bonds, we don’t know. And that would deffinately lower his over all tax rate. You seem to display a deep seated resentment for any one of means who trys to minimize his tax profile. I’m sure you utilize all the legal deductions and write-offs you can when prepairing your taxes but resent when Romney does the same, or even a average Joe like me. What gives? Do you just hate anyone with more money than you or do you really believe that those who do simply must be doing something illegal?
The Caveman grunts “Romney earn much, pay little” Last time I looked, WTF cares!
How anyone can take this kind of pseudo-moralizing seriously, after having witnessed the very same person refuse to concede that child rape is an objective wrong, is beyond me.
Says DNW from behind his gates!
On child rape, you must be thinking of your best friend, DNW, but not me, in either case!
No Perry, I was referring to you Perry, and to your very recent denial that the sexual use of minors was objectively wrong; because, or so you asserted, some cultures, (though you did not specify which ones’) admitted the practice.
This leaves open of course the question as to how you (personally) would pretend to make any assertion of value that is not admitted as purely an expression of your momentary and culturally conditioned whimsey.
Apparently your repeated objections to, for example, “racism”, are mere products of your own conditioning and or idiosyncratic nature, and not really based on any principles which it is morally incumbent upon any rational man of good will to accept.
Not really. Perry is a left winger, perhaps even a borderline Marxist. And their ideology tells them to hate any man who has a dime more than they do. They practice the Politics of Envy, and they don’t care if it hurts the economy or the country as a whole.
We all know what will happen. If Republicans win, Perry will be demanding the maximum amount of obstructionism from the Democrats. IOW, he will cheer for the same things he now whines about from our side. I won’t even use the word “Hypocrite” to describe this, the word phony will suffice instead.
You’re the one who’s willing to excuse it because there are, according to you, no objective moral standards.
Where is this coming from, except as a smear. Citation please!
I don’t believe that nor have I ever expressed it. I guess this is the new DNW speaking, make up a smear and shove it. You see, weaklings like Eric pick up on these things without questioning, on second hand lying. You folks are freaks of nature, I swear!!! Good god.
As follows:
To,
To,
To,
And,
To recapitulate, Perry.
You objected to any absolutist proclamation about anything.
I responded that one could make valid absolute statements about some things such as moral issues or values or logical matters.
On the matter of the moral example I gave, you denied that an absolute moral condemnation could be validly expressed (no matter how much you supposedly might “like to”) because something you called other cultures, supposedly did not do so.
I responded that I was not addressing what principle it was that was accepted and lived up to without exception worldwide, but what behavior could be validly condemned irregardless of culture, based on the nature of the beings or persons involved.
Now, if you have anything to add in the way of clarification to your previous remarks which clearly posited the sexual use of children as a culturally relative tabu, rather than an objective moral crime which is violative of the nature and rights of the person being acted upon, please feel free to do so.
Perhaps in rethinking your position you may be able to say why, or if, racism is really wrong.
Well, I’m done checking in for the day, and it seems that my response to Perry’s request, and his lack of a subsequent acknowledgement or explanation, has brought things to a temporary halt.
I trust though that the response and citations above suffice to demonstrate to Perry that his indignation was misplaced, and that he had indeed earlier implied that what I had condemned as an objective evil, he had characterized, relativistically, as a cultural tabu.
Since he seems so outraged by this confrontation with his very own doctrine, he may wish to revisit the grounds upon which he originally embraced it in the first place.
Perry says,
Citation given.
So how about that.
I take it that Perry now concedes that my characterization of the implications flowing from his deconstructed and relativistic moral foundation was accurate, even if he is not too enthusiastic about reconsidering the redounding effects of it upon himself, or upon the trans-personal validity of any or all of his own gibbering “moral judgments”, or pronouncements.
Maybe if he ignores the problem, no one else will notice or remark upon it …
Sorry, I’m not meaning to ignore this issue. But here is the key statement which seems to bother you, DNW:
I cannot imagine a cultural circumstance where I would ever condone such behavior. This is an extreme example in which it is obvious to condemn this behavior. However, my question is this: Is there a culture on earth which practices the “sexual utilization of children by adults”?
If not, then this exercise is meaningless.
The fact of the matter is that you have chosen this extreme and unlikely example to justify your support for absolutist ideologies.
I claim that this is OK within an individual, but one person’s absolute cannot be compelled upon another. It is up to each individual to form one’s own absolutes.
This is especially important in religion, where, for example, an absolutist like John Hitchcock or Dana Pico feel it is their place to compel their absolutist ideas onto others, followed by condemnation, and even punishment, for non compliant folks. Instead of *selling* their versions of absolutism, they are insisting on its acceptance. I for one do not approve, for reasons already stated.
PS: This problem is also evident regarding political issues, with the “my way or the highway” approach, which obviates negotiating to a solution. Today’s right wing extremists are behaving in this manner of absolutism. This is not helpful.
I did not ask you to. You are the one who asserted that it was the existence of certain cultural practices – the time or place of which you did not specify – which made any categorical moral judgement on the matter, the formation of any absolute prohibitory precept, invalid.
You are the one who cited “cultures” as an excuse for refraining from a categorical condemnation of child sexual abuse. I don’t have any idea why you say you are now unsuccessfully trying to imagine the cultural circumstances which would allow you to condone child rape. That was not your original contention.
I don’t know what you suppose you mean there. The example was extreme precisely in order to demonstrate the principle that some categorical moral judgements could in fact properly be rendered based on the nature of the kind.
Your objection to the validity of such a categorical moral judgement, was based on your assertion that not everyone lived by that judgement; and you anointed that supposedly dissenting population as “some cultures which condone”.
Apparently then, to your mind, the ultimate arbiter for what is humanly fitting and right, is what “some cultures condone” for those who live “within” that “culture”.
Looks like chattel slavery was and could again become “moral”. Can’t say I would like that. A dueling practice which would allow the legal killing of aging 1960′s Maoist terrorists who have escaped justice, might have some attraction – even for a surviving Kennedy – though.
What the fuck are you asking me for? You are the one who said that there were, and you are the one who said that my absolutist moral precept condemning the sexual use of children by adults was invalidated by the fact of the practice.
You are the one claimed that there were. And you claimed that they were, in order to try and invalidate my absolute moral condemnation of child raper and abuse by stating that such intrinsically horrific practices were condoned by “some cultures”. As if a cultural imprimatur were all it took to your mind in order to justify any behavior no matter how sickening or destructive.
I chose it – along with the other two examples – because of the clarity it potentially offered, or should offer, any normal person. But then you are the one who apparently imagines that the logical law of non-contradiction, can also be sensibly denied.
Really. So you see raping children as legitimate if and where and when it is “culturally condoned”, but making you responsible for your own medical expenses is not.
If you and your kind bore the burden of paying for your own choices, Dana’s and John’s sale of acceptable and recommended choices would be made for them by your self-induced destruction. Yet you demand that others underwrite and validate your choices, and that Dana and Hitchcock be absolutely condemned to not only tolerate, but to actively assist in the furtherance of your demented ideals.
You, a totalitarian, accuse them of absolutism merely because they are unwilling to participate in their own overthrow and destruction.
But why should they?
Goddamn, Perry. I stand watching in amazement as the depth of your autistic relativistic totalitarianism reveals the traditional human vocabulary of collectivism as completely inadequate to even touch upon the surface of your moral derangement.