per drudgereport

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html

Quote :

" April 17, 2007 Obama on Virginia Tech, and "Violence" A reader (who found my take on Obama's Milwaukee talk cynical) points me to the audio of his remarks last night, a 23-minute .mp3 file you can listen to here. It's worth a listen, and it captures what moves a lot of people about Obama, and bothers others: His instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action. Other politicians would -- and will -- stay with the concrete. They'll talk about this tragedy, and, soon, gun control. But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion. "Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it," he says toward the end. So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life. "There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence." There's the "verbal violence" of Imus. There's "the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country." There's "the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored," And so, Obama says, "there's a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and so much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other." Many politicians would avoid, I think, about suggesting that outsourcing and mass-murder belong in the same category. From there, he mourns again the Virginia dead, and then says, "This is an opportunity I think that all of us have today to reflect," and then heads into his stump speech -- education, healthcare, energy policy, politics being broken -- but returning to the Virginia Tech shootings. "

4/17/2007 5:51:29 PM

So I guess this is supposed to be bad?

I might think it was bad if I had only read your topic, but your topic is intentionally misleading.

4/17/2007 5:59:34 PM

Quote :

"your topic is intentionally misleading."

4/17/2007 6:01:46 PM

yeah, i was planning on reading this thread and being angry because of his remarks, but I actually agree

4/17/2007 6:03:12 PM

reality check, getting murdered in cold blood != loosing your job

I dunno, if I had just lost a child and some politician compared my child's murder to outsourcing to make a political point I might just be a tad mad about that.

4/17/2007 6:09:56 PM

So I take it you don't read much?


The different faces of violence was the theme of his speech.

He made no comparison of the two events other than pointing out that they're both forms violence, nor did he suggest that the two events are equally violent/tragic



[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 6:14:37 PM

^^But he's not really making a comparison.

He's discussing the theme of violence and all the types we endure each day.

It's a billion times more interesting than the usual "condolences. great nation. overcome."

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 6:15 PM. Reason : sss]

4/17/2007 6:15:18 PM

^,^^ gg guys. saved me the trouble!

4/17/2007 6:16:39 PM

"Mass murder and beer pong both occurred at colleges this week."


OMG BOONE COMPARED MASS MURDER TO A DRINKING GAME!!!!1

4/17/2007 6:17:49 PM

Losing your job isn't a form of violence. Getting shot is a form of violence. Thus trying to make losing your job into a form of violence is linking it to getting shot.

Losing your job != a form of violence. Saying it is undermines the word violence and what it does, and should, pertain too. You lessen the word and it's meaning and you compare losing your job to being killed.

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : s]

4/17/2007 6:22:33 PM

I was like

"Man! A gaff from Obama??! Inconceivable!"

But then it wasn't and now I'm just disappointed.

4/17/2007 6:28:50 PM

^^you cheapen grammar by using it incorrectly.

4/17/2007 6:29:43 PM

1) he wasn't just talking about a simple losing of the job, but about people who have worked all their lives in the same position with the same company, but still their job is moved abroad.

2) sure, it isn't violence in the main sense, but he is obviously looking at the concept of violence as a continuum, ranging from what i described above, to verbal abuse, to murder.

4/17/2007 6:30:53 PM

He is still saying that losing your job is a form of violence, which it isn't. That might pander to the isolationist/anti-globalists/whoever, but it isn't true. Yeah it would suck it be in a job for 20 years and then get fired, but it isn't a violent action. What Imus said wasn't violent speach either. If he called for attacks/violence against nappy headed hos, then yeah that would be a form of violence. He didn't though.

I'm sorry, but lumping Imus's remarks, losing your job, and the MASS MURDER OF 30 PEOPLE!! together is wrong. Only one of those three is violent and if people can't understand that... well I guess you can felate Obama some more. I know politicians from all stripes do this type of shit all the time, but damn.

4/17/2007 6:38:13 PM

He defines violence as "our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other" (which is an interesting definition. Damn I wish we had an articulate ( ) President)

The scenario Obama used fits this definition.


Your inability to realize what Obama was actually talking about is a little depressing.

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 6:41:09 PM

^^

Quote :

"So I take it you don't read much? "

4/17/2007 6:51:08 PM

That's a pretty odd definition of violence.

4/17/2007 6:55:08 PM

Quote :

"He defines violence as "our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other" (which is an interesting definition. Damn I wish we had an articulate ( ) President)"

If redefining a word to advance your political message is articulate, then George Bush is the second coming of Thomas Jefferson.

As it is, Obama's "definition" of violence is pretty stupid.

4/17/2007 6:57:06 PM

who cares what obama says...its not like hes going to be president

4/17/2007 6:58:29 PM

He's got a decent chance.

4/17/2007 6:59:39 PM

Why is it dumb?

I like it. Don't all forms of violence stem from the inability or unwillingness to empathize with others?


And jeez people. He wasn't using the shooting to promote his agenda. He was relating his agenda to the topic at hand. It's called good oratory.

4/17/2007 7:03:19 PM

Quote :

"your topic is intentionally misleading"

4/17/2007 7:06:52 PM

Violence is the use of force or the threat of force against another.

Demanding that the government force another to pay you for unwanted labor is violence. Freely choosing to hire someone who will work for less is not.

Cracking down on "offensive" language is violence, unless carried out by purely nonviolent means, such as pulling sponsorship. Saying something that someone, somewhere, might take offense to is not violence. If it were, all expression would be violent, since - in principle - anyone can take offense at anything.

Killing 30 people is absolutely violence.

The problem with liberals is that they employ twisted definitions to heap their opponents with scorn which rightfully belongs on them.

4/17/2007 7:17:21 PM

i want to take a shit on your forehead.

4/17/2007 7:18:09 PM

Quote :

"Why is it dumb? I like it."

Because it's untrue.

Quote :

" Don't all forms of violence stem from the inability or unwillingness to empathize with others?"

1. Thats not what he said
2. No, no they don't

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:22 PM. Reason : 2]

4/17/2007 7:21:51 PM

"our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other" =/= "the inability or unwillingness to empathize with others" ...?



AND OMG Megaloman84 COMPARED MASS MURDER TO TAXES!!!!1

Quote :

"The problem with liberals is that they employ twisted definitions to heap their opponents with scorn which rightfully belongs on them."

Isn't that exactly what you just did with the taxes = violence rant?



[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 7:29:53 PM

the title is misleading. It is right off of the drudge report though which kinda does that


oh and...

Quote :

"^,^^ gg guys. saved me the trouble! "

OEP11, I thought you were done?

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 7:34:45 PM

So you used the intact title... why?

4/17/2007 7:36:08 PM

lazy, end of day...but you got the whole story so take it for what you will...

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 7:37:10 PM

So you made this thread... why?

4/17/2007 7:37:49 PM

so you posted in this thread, why?

4/17/2007 7:38:27 PM

To demonstrate why this thread title was misleading.

I'm curious, though; if you knew this thread title was misleading, why did you post it? If it was misleading then there was no reason what-so-ever to make this thread, other than to intentionally mislead people.

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:45 PM. Reason : t]

4/17/2007 7:42:24 PM

I'm curious to know why would you care? unless you have established some status quo around the SB where you feel you can try some of your "tww logic" to try and troll people

You saw the entire story on the first post. If my title (admittedly misleading) continued to confuse you even after reading the entire story that I even posted for your eyes to read then maybe you should take some Reading comp. classes?

meanwhile, I don't have the time to help you in that area

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 7:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 7:45:36 PM

Quote :

"why would you care?"

I just like to point out willful intellectual dishonesty when I see it.

4/17/2007 7:47:00 PM

i think you are trying to delve into something that isn't there. Let it go, because now you know

4/17/2007 7:49:33 PM

Well it's either dishonesty or stupidity. :shrug:

4/17/2007 7:52:23 PM

the more you know...

4/17/2007 7:53:39 PM

Quote :

"3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or law"

Quote :

"the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country"

As per Dictionary.com

If you believe as he does that outsourcing jobs from people who have worked all their lives for the company is an unjust exertion of power against their rights then you believe it is violence. You might not agree with his ideas but bashing his wording that is actually quite articulate and stimulates emotion in people (and correct by dictionary.com) doesn't accomplish anything.

4/17/2007 8:30:01 PM

Quote :

"You saw the entire story on the first post. If my title (admittedly misleading) continued to confuse you even after reading the entire story that I even posted for your eyes to read then maybe you should take some Reading comp. classes?"

you're the one who obviously has some irrational dislike of obama. if it was a reasoned dislike, you'd think that you could form a cogent argument instead of trying to mislead people

4/17/2007 8:38:35 PM

Quote :

"AND OMG Megaloman84 COMPARED MASS MURDER TO TAXES!!!!"

Quote :

"Isn't that exactly what you just did with the taxes = violence rant?"

Explain to me where I mentioned taxes in my post, 'cause that wasn't my point at all.

Getting the government to force somebody to employ you is violence.

Mass murder is violence too. I think everybody agrees that mass murder is much worse. Saying that both are violence takes nothing from the horror with which anybody should regard random, senseless, killing.

If you'll reread my post you'll find that it's entirely self-consistent. I started with a definition and proceeded to apply the definition to the specific examples at issue in this thread.

4/17/2007 8:53:03 PM

Quote :

"you're the one who obviously has some irrational dislike of obama. if it was a reasoned dislike, you'd think that you could form a cogent argument instead of trying to mislead people "

lol, if you have been misled by a thread title on a messageboard then you shouldn't be in college...

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 9:09:55 PM

Crazywade got pwned on this one.

LOL.

Your street cred. is shot, yo.

4/17/2007 9:12:28 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me where I mentioned taxes in my post, 'cause that wasn't my point at all."

Haha, sorry. I read "Demanding that the government force another to pay..." and started seeing "blah blah blah taxation is stealing." I've seen too many EarthDogg posts


But despite my wrong assumption, my point stands. You stretched the hell out of the definition of a word to make it fit your antitaxregulation stance, then immediately accused liberals of using that same exact tactic.

4/17/2007 9:12:30 PM

how very tom joad of him

4/17/2007 9:14:49 PM

^^^negative, there is no validity in anyone's argument. If anything, everybody gets pwned for ignorance

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 9:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 9:15:18 PM

Are you trying to troll now?

This thread is one Crazywade failure after another.

4/17/2007 9:19:05 PM

actually, i made the thread, you insigated the conflict, so you're the troll....

and you continue to do so while you grow bolder after reading comments by Panthro and others...

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 9:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2007 9:20:37 PM

So legitimately calling bullshit on someone is trolling?

4/17/2007 10:41:39 PM

Yeah, this thread is bullshit - don't be angry that nobody in the Republican party is worth a damn when it comes to oration.

4/17/2007 10:50:22 PM

While I might disagree with Obama's premise, he gets props from me for at least looking for causation, instead of going all reactionary like everyone I've watched on TV tonight.

4/17/2007 10:57:07 PM