The latest right-wing outrage, not just on Fox, et al., but here on DU, too

[markpkessinger]

(NOTE: AFTER I POSTED THIS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE OP IN ANOTHER THREAD WHICH i REFER TO HERE WAS NOT, IN FACT AIMED AT PRESIDENT OBAMA, BUT AT A POST BY ANOTHER DU-ER (WHO HAD POSTED A COMMENT THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND FOR WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PILLORIED BY RIGHT-WING MEDIA. FOR THAT ERROR, I APOLOGIZE. HOWEVER, IF THE ACCUSATION THAT HE WAS "TRYING TO CONDONE THE BURNING TO DEATH OF A MAN IN A CAGE" WAS WRONG AS APPLIED TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID (AS I BELIEVED WHEN I WROTE THIS PIECE), THEN IT IS WRONG WHEN APPLIED TO ANOTHER DU-ER WHO SAID SUBSTANTIVELY THE SAME THING. THUS, I STAND FIRMLY BEHIND THE RATIONALE LAID OUT BELOW AS TO WHY SUCH AN ACCUSATION IS SUCH A SCURRILOUS THING TO LEVEL AGAINST ANYONE (BASED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND OUR FELLOW DU-ER SAID), IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO THE INTENDED TARGET OF THAT ACCUSATION ACTUALLY WAS.)

The outrage over the President's remarks earlier this week at a National Paryer Breakfast on Fox and other right-wing outlets was predictable enough. Surely, by now, we must all expect as much from that bunch, in reaction anything the President says about, well, anything at all. Perpetual outrage is the right's emotional currency, so irrespective of what it might be in response to, it is never a surprise, and much of the time doesn't even merit being accorded the dignity of a response.

But I am surprised -- no, shocked -- to see that same outrage mirrored here on DU, accusing the President of "[t]rying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage." I am even more shocked to see such a post receive (as of this writing) 84 "likes" with remarkably little by way of push back The most generous thing I can say about [link: on DU, accusing the President of "[t]Trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage."[link: on DU, accusing the President of "[t]Trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage."|that OP] is that it is a grossly dishonest characterization of what the President said and of what he intended to say in his remarks. Look, I am not exactly this President's biggest fan. I have never refrained, and never will, from expressing substantive criticism of this or any President when I have believed his policies or statements have been misguided. (I have never been big on the idea of politics-as-team-sport.) Indeed, I have been sharply critical of this President on many fronts: his drone campaign, his failure to go after Wall Street criminals, his coddling of the NSA's and CIA's illegal activities, his indefensible, aggressive prosecutions of whistleblowers, the expanded powers he has claimed under the NDAA, to name just a few. On my best days, I count myself among those who have been deeply disappointed by what I see as the lost promise of his Presidency; on my less sangjine days, I see his Presidency as one giant, corporatist Trojan horse. But I believe -- and strongly -- that if criticism is to be responsible, it must in the first place be honest and substantive, and proceed from premises that are also, at least arguably, honest and substantive. None of the criticism over this issue, either from those on the right or in the OP to which I refer, is either of those.

The President was no delivering a speech about ISIL/ISIL or about any of its specific horrors, much less condoning, downplaying or invoking false equivalencies concerning any of it. The real meat of the President's speech, following some introductory comments, begins as follows:

Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years. But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil.

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

That was the set-up for the remarks that followed. It was a speech by a man of faith, to an audience of persons of faith (primarily Christians), about how conscientious persons of faith come to grips with the fact that some -- in every age and in every religion -- pervert the tenets of the very faith they profess as a means of justifying unjustifiable acts of evil. And it was a discussion about the perils of religious intolerance. This is the context in which the President's remarks must be understood. Indeed, it is the very next paragraph that the President makes the statements that are being so loudly criticized. The President continues:

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

There is absolutely nothing in the President's speech, either in the portions I have quoted above or in the remainder of the speech, that any honest person could, in good conscience, construe as condoning the horrific actions of ISIL/ISIS or of drawing any false equivalency thereto. The fact is that far too many Christians -- and American Christians in particular -- are prone fo falling into a belief in self-superiority, and of believing themselves to be somehow immune to the corruptions of heart and mind that have, at one point or another, afflicted every religion (as well as every political system) in human history. The President went on to speak at length about the need for a certain humility that is incumbent upon conscientious persons of faith with respect to any truth they may believe themselves to be in possession of, and in recognition that others, of other faiths and non-faiths, also have truths we need to hear. And I speak as a Christian when I say that Christians -- and again, American Christians in particular -- need to be reminded of this . . . often and repeatedly. History tells us that when Christians -- or indeed, persons of any faith or non-faith -- believe themselves to be the sole possessors of truth and the sole exemplars of goodness or righteousness or justice, bad things happen. Very bad things. And I find it unconscionable that any person of conscience, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other faith, or atheist, much less those on a liberal or left-leaning site, could possibly find fault in the President or anybody else stating such a reminder.

For those who "liked" the other OP, I would urge you to either read the transcript of the speech, or watch the video below, for yourself, and then reconsider whether you still think the President was, any way, condoning the "burning to death of a man i a cage."

[liberal N proud]

1. If his lips are moving the right wing is outraged

They have been outraged so many times over the last 6+ years. Boy who cried wolf!

[Thinkingabout]

2. I agree, if President Obama would say he was resigning the RW would find something negative.

His statement should be used in its entirety and not just a few words. I am beginning the RW suffer from a very short attention spam, unable to take a short speech and tie all the parts together.

[dhol82]

5. I am beginning to see that

many here on DU suffer from the same problem. Can't tell you how many recent posts have devolved into screeds against people who posted something interesting that many did not choose to read all the way through. And, when apprised of the fact that they had not read the entire post we get another screed about 'don't tell me what I know.' Fascinating.

[Thinkingabout]

8. RWAS, Right Wing Attention Disorder.

[MADem]

26. And they fan out across the internet to let everyone know just how they feel, too.

You'd think they'd look for a new hobby. The guy isn't running for a third term--he's already won his races. Twice. The max the law allows!

[ucrdem]

3. Thanks for laying it all out

Missed the speech but yeah that's been the pattern: RW launches the nutrage catapult and some of it always lands here. And lingers for years in some cases, but mostly blows away in the next news cycle. This particular propaganda assault has been going on for six years and so far we've mostly been winning but it takes a lot of patience and drilling down and that's one thing DU is very good at.

[markpkessinger]

4. I have always said . . .

. . . that there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to criticize this President; but the right always -- ALWAYS -- gets it wrong.

[daredtowork]

6. While I reserve the right to criticize the President

I agree DU has been playing into the hands of the Rightwing's outrage machine in multiple ways. I keep waiting for MIRT to recognixe FOX talking points or for people to generally realize they are making the GOP argument for them right when the Dems need to be rallying.

[markpkessinger]

7. If a criticism is honest . . .

. . . I don't care from where, or from whom, it comes, even if it were a Republican. (Then again, that scenario has never come up for me, because I've never yet heard a Republican make an honest criticism ),

[AverageJoe90]

76. "I agree DU has been playing into the hands of the Rightwing's outrage machine" Sad, but damn true.

It isn't just one way well-meaning progressives and other liberals keep falling into ideological and rhetorical traps; whether it be some complete and total crapola associated with the more extreme versions of Critical Race Theory, for example, on the social side of things, or, on the geopolitical side, the relative lack of ability of some to fully comprehend that Russia Today is nothing more than Putin's personal agitprop machine(and believe me, it is!), a la FOX News here in the States, or, as stated in the OP, too ready to jump to conclusions about Obama stumbling into another bullshit war, despite little evidence to support that(and the fact that he DID force Assad to destroy most of his WMD stockpiles).....and then there's economic issues to take into account as well; Janet Yellen may have been the best person for that job in a long time.

I realize full well Obama isn't perfect. And many of us do accept legitimate criticism of the President's actions when needed. But he's better than any of the Republicans, for damn sure.

[daredtowork]

85. I have to admit I fall for RT links

They seem so progressive! But as you point out - things are never what they seem.

[AverageJoe90]

86. Yeah.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Thom Hartmann is a genuinely decent guy, and not everybody who works for RT directly is a willing stooge, either: there've been at least a few incidences I can recall in which folks went against the official line, because they felt it to be the right thing to do.

Even FOX News seems to have a couple of decent folks on their staff.....Shep Smith, mainly, although Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes don't seem too shabby, either.

[daredtowork]

88. Thom Hartmann is on the RT channel?

Ouch, that must really cut into his audience/reception.

[MohRokTah]

9. I, for one, couldn't be more supportive of the President.

His speech was BRILLIANT!

[JDPriestly]

15. I agree with you. That speech was wonderful.

Right-wing religious fanatics do not want to see themselves for what they are. And that goes for the right-wing religious fanatics regardless of religion. It is not just Muslim or Hindu.

[LiberalAndProud]

10. So well stated, Mark.

I think Obama has struck an elegant balance on a precarious perch.

“When I hear the president of the United States and his chief spokesperson failing to admit that we’re in a religious war, it really bothers me. And I want to be somebody who can talk about the world as it really is.” -- Lindsey Graham

[Fred Sanders]

11. The OP that you link to with 87 recs. actually agrees with what you say.

Maybe the headline of that OP is somewhat misleading, but the intent is clear in the entire OP, it mirrors Obama's speech.

"ISIS is a group of monsters who are holding a population hostage and torturing it. Those who made the mistake of joining that group end up being beheaded themselves if they try to leave .. there is no discussion of policy with that group. They do not get to vote them out or go on a board to vent their frustration with policies the group is doing

They (ISIS) are not Muslims promoting their faith. Their faith strictly forbids what ISIS is doing.. I don't give a hang what they call themselves, they are not Muslims. They are evil.. pure and simple."

The full video is awesome, Obama is a wise man.

Can I say that?

[markpkessinger]

18. I've read and re-read the other OP . . .

. . . and I xtill interpret it as being aimed at the President. It starts by implying that the President tried "to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage by saying.. hey we did it.. or wow didn't Christians and Jews do this too hundreds of years ago.. or we are no better because we used Napalm in Vietnam. I am telling you right now.. you are so off the beam. It is sickening. And trying to equate the two is exactly what ISIS does."

And then it goes on to suggest the President was drawing an equivalency between what ISIS has done and what the West has done in the name of religion:

"But do not try and paint that this horror is no different from anything the West has done."

Seems to me the author of that OP is both accusing the President of having drawn such a false equivalency, while at the same time vigorously turning a blind eye towards true horror of what the West has, in fact, done in the name of religion.

Maybe you see something i it that I don't see . . .

[Fred Sanders]

20. On second thought what I see in the linked OP is a very awkward and confusing piece of writing, but the last

sentence has it right.

[markpkessinger]

22. I'm not sure I can quite go with the last sentence either . . .

. . . to say that the members of Isis "are not Muslims" strikes me as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It's the same fallacy that is used by some Christians to deny Christian extremism -- "people who bomb abortion clinics aren't Christians." That's a dangerous delusion, too, in that it can be used by some of the more moderate types in a given group as an excuse to avoid confronting extremism that arises in its midst.

[Fred Sanders]

53. You have convinced me of one thing for sure, now.

[gwheezie]

12. I couldn't have said it better

I have pointed out to several people the defeat of isis is going to depend on muslim countries being able to get past historical conflicts and work together to convince their people to go to war. It is ridiculous to think a president who lets face it continued to put lived and treasure on the line to stand up and condemn Islam or use the term radical Islam at a prayer breakfast.
Obama talked about humility. I understood his meaning to be people of faith need to have humility about their own religion.
I'm an atheist I will never pretend atrocities have not been committed by governments that forbid religion to exist. Ive read comments by atheists blaming religion for wars. Religion has been used to justify wars but it doesn't cause wars or genocide. It's not the belief or non belief that causes war.
I do find it perplexing that the horrific death of the pilot seems to have driven people past some point. Like it was tolerable until then?

[weissmam]

13. I have seen this over and over again

religion is what weak and deficient people use too make themselves feels superiors to people that are their superior .

You religion is either a choice or an accident -period

[Hissyspit]

14. He sounded like the intelligent scholar / academic I voted for.

[lunasun]

77. Same here ^

[Hekate]

91. Yes he did.

[MisterP]

16. one day Dems are accused of being pro-ISIS, others

of supporting Assad

[Thespian2]

17. Right On, Brother!

The fake christians on the right have not the slightest idea what our ancient ancestors were writing about those thousands of years ago , yet they hasten to condemn anything they think doesn't fit their entirely fanatical view of the world. I read the scholarly texts written by men who could and did read ancient Christian texts. Try it...learn to understand the various texts never to found in the Bible. Perhaps the right-wing rabble know the real names of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. (Those are not them.) I doubt they have a clue. No one else does.

[vlyons]

19. As a Buddhist, I found his speech spot-on and cogent.

To me, the established Christian Church has little to do with the teachings of Christ to feed the poor, heal the sick, love thy neighbor, and practice peace. Christianity has a horrible history. And today's right-wing Christians are extremely self-righteous and intolerant. The prosperity Christians are the complete antithesis of Christ's teachings. Are you aware that the Dalai Lama was an honored guest in the audience? How many of those good Christians greeted gthe Dalai Lama with brotherly love? How many of those good Christians pray for the good health of our President and that he will be guided to make wise decisions for the benefit of everyone? Keeping up with their outrages is fatigueing.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. That post might have been aimed at me

I posted something similar to what the President said the night before he did, and got accused of all sorts of vile stuff:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026182131

[markpkessinger]

23. Whether aimed at you or at the President . . .

. . . it was clearly an effort to gloss over the true horrors of what has been done in the course of history by the West in the name of religion!

But we all know the West has never, ever done anything at all like what ISIS has done, right?


Waco, Texas - 1916


Cheers!
-Mark

[markpkessinger]

24. Perhaps we should call it "Manny Derangement Syndrome" . .

Manny Derangement Syndrome -- a psychological condition in which the sufferer believes that anything said or written by Manny Goldstein requires a swift, incisive rebuttal, even when, and in some cases especially when, the statement in question happens to be true.

. . . seems to be a lot of that around here!

[MannyGoldstein]

25. I will be referencing that definition often!

Usually I don't mind the crazy accusations too much, but being accused of condoning or apologizing for ISIS did get me steamed. This morning some DU nut accused me of bringing up burning witches because that happened longer ago than Papal executions, and I wanted to protect Pope Francis who I love so dearly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6192730

I's just @#$&ing crazy. And stupid, because "witches" are still being burned by Christians in Africa, at least as of a few years ago, so I have no idea.

[markpkessinger]

27. If indeed the other OP was aimed at your post . . .

. . . then I would love to hear an explanation from either the author of, or anybody who "liked," the other OP as to why it was such a grievous thing for you to say, but apparently was not so grievous when the President said it. Or, alternatively, I'd like to know if the people who took you to task for what you said are equally willing to take the President to task for what he said -- and if not, why not.

I won't hold my breath, though.

[Waiting For Everyman]

31. Not a problem, I'm one of the recs.

Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 06:43 AM - Edit history (1)

As to Manny's post, you can read my objection to his OP in his thread. (It's toward the bottom.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026182131#post95

As to taking the POTUS to task, here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026184066#post13

Seems to me you owe Peacetrain an apology.

[Oilwellian]

63. You will get no apology from this DU'er

Because I think both you and Peacetrain are wrong to accuse Obama and fellow DUers of condoning ISIS barbarity. It is a disgusting comment that has no place on this forum. Suffice it to say there are those here who are more capable of understanding nuance and have contextual intelligence, and then there are those who don't have that skill.

Here's Peacetrain's attack on Obama and fellow DUers:

Trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage by saying.. hey we did it.. or wow didn't Christians and Jews do this too hundreds of years ago.. or we are no better because we used Napalm in Vietnam

I am telling you right now.. you are so off the beam. It is sickening. And trying to equate the two is exactly what ISIS does.

Here is you're attack of Obama:

I used to think he was smarter than this. He just handed ISIS a blank check. He tossed in the trash any moral authority he might have had, even to verbally condemn these atrocities, much less do anything about them.

I saw it on tv, I really couldn't believe my ears.

He might as well have said, "sure, we all make mistakes". MY head is exploding! This shit is sickening:

In reference to his specific quote in the OP...

This shit by ISIS sure as hell IS unique to some other place right now, and that is what we're talking about! Is there an ADD virus loose in the world, or what? Can he not follow a subject long enough to hold on to a point? Or does he think he's a college professor teaching ISIS and the rest of us sitting around in a little classroom somewhere?

Wow.

And we're supposed to apologize for these trollish comments? That is just laughable.

[NanceGreggs]

28. I cannot imagine ...

... how you could possibly construe the OP you've referenced as "accusing the President of trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage."

Clearly, that OP was aimed at posters here, whose immediate response to Obama's statements was to equate what ISIS had done with what the US has done. And, yes, it was certainly set-off by Manny's OP "Burning people to death. Didn't Christians do that a few years back?"

Ergo, Peacetrain's reference to: ""or wow didn't Christians and Jews do this too hundreds of years ago.. or we are no better because we used Napalm in Vietnam." Or did you think that was purely coincidental?

"If you want to start a discussion about what happened in Vietnam.. or Iraq.. or what people did in the name of any religion anything.. post about it... "

Clearly, the OP was talking about the posters here who were going with the "yeah, but ISIS burning a man to death this isn't so bad 'cause we did worse" school of thought. Surely you don't think that if Peacetrain was talking to/about Obama, she would be telling him to "post about it" - would she?

Peacetrain stated: "But do not try and paint that this horror is no different from anything the West has done."

The President spoke about what people have done in the name of their religion, not what people have done in "the West" as opposed to in "the Middle East" - or any other geographic region. Again, it seems obvious that Peacetrain was referring to what had been posted here as opposed to anything Obama had said.

Peacetrain's "recs" came from people who agreed with the OP that those here on DU who insist on playing the "the US is just as bad as everyone else in the world" game are diminishing, or dismissing out-of-hand, the atrocities being perpetrated by others in the here-and-now.

"The President was not delivering a speech about ISIL/ISIL or about any of its specific horrors, much less condoning, downplaying or invoking false equivalencies concerning any of it."

You're right, Obama wasn't. But there are posters here who were doing precisely that. And THAT was the point of Peacetrain's OP.

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. Exactly right. Thank you!

It started in this thread by Manny:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026182131

Peacetrain's OP was a response, and then some more threads similar to Manny's sprouted up, tying in the couple of sentences POTUS said that were similar.

One OP by Peacetrain with that viewpoint, at least half a dozen with Manny's viewpoint.

[NanceGreggs]

30. I am still astounded ...

... that anyone could have mis-read Peacetrain's intent, along with the target her OP was very precisely aimed at.

Well, as they say, it's the hit dog that yelps.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. Color me astounded too.

Added to the logic not fitting as you said, nowhere in her post does she refer to Obama. Talk about a "high horse", it's in this OP.

[NanceGreggs]

34. I'm still trying to wrap my head around ...

... reading a sentence that says, "If you want to start a discussion about what happened in Vietnam.. or Iraq.. or what people did in the name of any religion anything.. post about it", and thinking that was aimed at Obama.

When did he start posting on DU?

[Waiting For Everyman]

36. Lol! Maybe Manny is OBAMA's sock.

(^^^That subject line is a joke, jurors^^^.)

It's the 50 recs that this thread got, that I can't get my head around. WTF!!!

[NanceGreggs]

37. Embedded link not working n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. Oh, sorry Nance

that was just an underline. I'm feeling emphatic, I guess.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Oh, sorry, MY mistake ...

I thought you were referring to another thread with 50 recs - didn't realize you meant THIS thread we're on. Had no idea it was up that high - until I just looked.

Jesus H. Christ.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I don't know about anyone else, but I recced it because it was an excellent OP n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

52. Even though it falsely accusses a DUer

Quoted from the OP above in this thread, 2nd paragraph (bolding mine):

The most generous thing I can say about "Trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage" |that OP] is that it is a grossly dishonest characterization of what the President said and of what he intended to say in his remarks.

The link in the OP, to one by Peacetrain, had nothing whatsover to do with the President's speech. She absolutely did not do anything the OP claims. And that's ok?

I'm really hoping you just somehow didn't notice all the posts here about how the OP is WRONG.

[Fred Sanders]

55. It was, except it misread the linked badly written, well intentioned OP. I Rec'd it for the full video of

Obama, which is Must view stuff. It is riveting. And was very well recieved by the attendee, as one can see and hear with your own eyes if you view all the 23 minute speech...Obama's Voice is compelling.

Obama's message of humility for all religions, in his speech video, is exactly as long as the ISIL video of the executed pilot video.....

Wonder what the hit count for each video would be worldwide, or versus the huge ratings the ISIL propaganda and recruitment video got for Fox, the exclusive distributor of ISIL Propaganda Productions Company, via Fox distributor 16th Century Fox?

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Accusing DUers of condoning that horrific murder is wrong...

No-one here at DU has condoned it.

[NanceGreggs]

70. That's a whole 'nother discussion.

My point is that Peacetrain's OP was about what she was reading on DU, and was NOT "accusing the President of trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage" - as the above OP has stated.

Peacetrain's OP references "posting" - a term she would not have used were she speaking to/about Obama.

[countryjake]

33. I didn't see any mention of "the West" or "the US" in MannyGoldstein's OP.

He did speak a bit about Abe Lincoln, agreeing with his take on religion, so maybe that could be construed as diminishing, dismissing, justifying, condoning, conflating, supporting, or excusing those ISIS atrocities.

Yes, I'm sure of it now. Heaven forbid, that any of us women-hating, head-chopping, people-burning, extremist-sympathizing DUers could ever have any thoughts similar to that of our President.

Sometimes I get so confused who to cheer for in this game.

GO BARBARIANS!

[NanceGreggs]

35. This isn't about Manny's OP ...

... It's about the fact that Peacetrain's OP referenced the title of Manny's OP.

Do try to keep up.

[markpkessinger]

49. You don't understand how I could construe it as having been aimed at the President?

Maybe it had something to do with the following:

(1) that it didn't reference Manny's or anybody else's DU post (and so no, it wasn't "clearly directed at posters here," or it least that wasn't clear to me);

(2) I hadn't seen Manny's post; and

(3) Both the rhetoric of indignation as well as the timing of Peacetrain's OP closely mirrored and corresponded with the coverage of Fox, et al.'s widely covered outrage.

And after having read Manny's post and the comments thereto, I sitll don't see ANYONE "trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage," as Peacetrain's post alleged. What's more, I think it is positively scurrilous to accuse Manny, or anyone else here, of such a thing.

[NanceGreggs]

72. ...

"If you want to start a discussion about what happened in Vietnam.. or Iraq.. or what people did in the name of any religion anything, post about it ..."

Do you think Peacetrain was telling Obama to POST his remarks? Wouldn't that term make is obvious that she was addressing POSTERS on DU, and not Obama?

I had only seen Manny's thread title - didn't read the OP. But when I saw Peacetrain's comment that paraphrased Manny's OP title, it was obvious what had prompted her remarks.

"Both the rhetoric of indignation as well as the timing of Peacetrain's OP closely mirrored and corresponded with the coverage of Fox, et al.'s widely covered outrage."

Seriously? DU is chock full of "rhetoric and indignation" aimed at Obama which often coincides with RW talking points. And again, Peacetrain was NOT accusing Obama of anything; she was accusing DU posters - and whether she did so unjustly or not is beside the point.

Whether anyone on Manny's thread "condoned" anything, I wouldn't know. I usually don't bother reading his threads, and didn't read that one. If you think Peacetrain was alleging something that didn't happen, or was accusing Manny unjustly, you (or he) can take that up with her.

"What's more, I think it is positively scurrilous to accuse Manny, or anyone else here, of such a thing."

And yet you accused Peacetrain of "accusing the President of trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage," when she did no such thing. Again, her remarks about "if you want to discuss ... POST ABOUT IT" makes it clear she was addressing fellow posters and NOT Obama's speech.

[markpkessinger]

75. Listen, I have conceded that I made a mistake concerning who the post was aimed at . . .

. . . And perhaps I should have picked up on the clues you mentioned, but for whatever reason, I did not. Be that as it may, I still think it was absolutely scurrilous to suggest that ANYONE here of "trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage."

[NanceGreggs]

81. "Condone" was certainly an inappropriate term.

But reading Peacetrain's OP, I think the gist of what she was saying was that posts in response to horrifying events (such as the ISIS burning) that immediately go to "yeah, but this OTHER thing is just as bad" tend to be dismissive of the specific here-and-now atrocity being discussed.

It reminds me of my daughter's response whenever she got in trouble, which was always "but what about him," referring to something her brother had done in the past - as though bringing up his bad behaviour somehow dismissed her own conduct.

Discussing horrific events isn't a contest, whereby one event should be somehow negated or marginalized by comparing it to another. That is what I drew from Peacetrain's OP - and I agree with her completely on that score.

[sibelian]

60. "yeah, but ISIS burning a man to death this isn't so bad 'cause we did worse" school of thought

No such school of thought actually exists, as anyone with basic reading comprehension could see perfectly well from Manny's original post. His post was not about ISIS, but Western hypocrisy. Not atrocity. HYPOCRISY.

Have you even the capacity for addressing what people actually say?

[NanceGreggs]

68. Again ...

This ISN'T about Manny's OP - it's about Peacetrain's. It is obvious that Peacetrain was referencing Manny by paraphrasing the title of his OP, which makes it obvious that she was therefore talking about DU posters and NOT Obama's remarks (as the above OP states).

Whether one agrees with Peacetrain's take or Manny's is beside the point. The point is that Peacetrain was addressing comments made by DU posters rather than addressing Obama's statements.

Hopefully, you have the capacity to comprehend the difference between opining on what is being posted on DU and opining on the President's speech.

[Oilwellian]

64. Exactly wrong

Manny's OP came before Obama's speech. Can you say whiplash?

[NanceGreggs]

82. So I'll say it yet again ...

My point had nothing to do with Manny's OP, other than to point out that Peacetrain's OP paraphrased Manny's thread title, thereby making it clear she was addressing POSTERS on DU, and NOT Obama's remarks, as the author of THIS thread originally stated - and has now corrected.

The timing of Manny's OP has sweet fuck all to do with anything.

[Dragonfli]

38. What I found strange was, a poster actually replied to a quote from Obama

Saying that by stating what was stated it was justifying Isis, until I pointed out it was from Obama that the quote originated and then the poster did a 180.

I see a similar phenomena right here in this thread. I find it fascinating that the same sentiment was attacked viciously when it came from Manny, but when it was put forward by Obama, the opposite.

How can one be so unsure of ones position that it changes to the opposite depending on the source?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6189018

[Waiting For Everyman]

41. Can't say for others, but I objected to both

Manny's and Obama's statements. This is in response to post #27 above, which raised a similar point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026195058#post31

I noticed other posters in the threads I responded to, who objected to the argument from both Manny and Obama, as I did.

[Dragonfli]

42. Now that I can understand, even if I strongly disagree. I personally

Think the president hit that out of the park. I also agreed with Manny.


I still don't understand what the right wing and a few here have against a truth that needed to be spoken.

Consistency in one's view regardless of source at least shows integrity, the other thing, not so much.
That would put you way above the Republicans that agree with you because I know from experience they would have agreed with it if it came from Reagan or Bush, they lack the integrity that you possess.

[Waiting For Everyman]

43. Thanks, Dragonfli

I appreciate that. I strongly agree with you too, that the source shouldn't determine one's view. That's a big pitfall that many fall into, especially on the right. The issue to them is who to trust, and then they'll believe whatever that person says -- that's why facts don't matter to them. They don't evaluate content itself. Either they don't know how, or are too lazy, I'm not sure which.

[Oilwellian]

65. That's why facts don't matter to them?

As I scroll through this thread, I find what you say more and more bizarre. As I pointed out above, I guess this post from you and addressed to Obama is an example of what you consider "facts?"

I used to think he was smarter than this. He just handed ISIS a blank check. He tossed in the trash any moral authority he might have had, even to verbally condemn these atrocities, much less do anything about them.

I saw it on tv, I really couldn't believe my ears.

He might as well have said, "sure, we all make mistakes". MY head is exploding! This shit is sickening:

In reference to his specific quote in the OP...

This shit by ISIS sure as hell IS unique to some other place right now, and that is what we're talking about! Is there an ADD virus loose in the world, or what? Can he not follow a subject long enough to hold on to a point? Or does he think he's a college professor teaching ISIS and the rest of us sitting around in a little classroom somewhere?

Wow.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026184066#post13

I will hand it to you, you do remain consistent and accuse both DUers and Obama of condoning ISIS barbarity. The point is, you're fucking wrong

[Waiting For Everyman]

84. You've heard of a thing called an "opinion" or an "observation".

I get to have an opinion, and make observations too, just like you, just like anyone ele. I don't think I ever said that I'm a news reporter, did I? Also you're taking a comment from one post (to Dragonfli re: RWers), and applying it to another post (reaction to Obama's comments).

I gave my reasons along with my opinion about the ISIS issue in the threads where the posts were made, which you can reread (or read for the first time) if necesary, and that's all I'm going to do. I'm not going to respond to name-calling and labeling (not by you, at least not that I've seen yet just starting to read the new posts in this thread... but elsewhere in this thread that I have already seen and others).

And I think you're "fucking wrong" too. Gee, I'm glad we settled that.

[Fred Sanders]

58. Because the mass media insists every argument have a counter argument? Even "humility"!

How else to make every truth Obama assaults them with appear outrageous?

[stevenleser]

90. Agreed. nt

[Oilwellian]

61. You have touched on the core issue

Manny's original comment came long before Obama's, and his regular harassers appeared in the thread to admonish him. Then hilarity ensued. When Obama repeated something similar to what Manny wrote, the same DUers responded adoringly. A day later, they were there to show their support for Peacetrain's thread. Personally, I'm still recovering from the whiplash their gross hypocrisy created, and IMHO, Peacetrain owes an apology to DU for accusing fellow DUers of condoning ISIS.

Great post, Mark. I see I'm not the only one suffering from whiplash. LOL

[rhett o rick]

74. Hilarity indeed. I agree with you. nm

[Waiting For Everyman]

44. THIS WHOLE THREAD IS IN ERROR (if that matters)

Please read the responses in the thread.

MannyGoldstein pointed this out above, so did NanceGreggs, and so did I.

The link in this OP is NOT about Obama! Not at all. It's very obvious.

Peacetrain should be given an apology, and so should all the people who rec'd her thread.(because an issue was made about us rec'ing it.)

Btw, what's up with people continuing to rec this thread, even AFTER the error has been pointed out?

[markpkessinger]

48. If I misunderstood who the other OP was aimed at . . .

. . . then I apologize for my misunderstanding. But Manny and Obama said essentially the same thing. You have answered, for yourself, that you objected to both when it was stated by Manny and when the President stated it, and I commend you on your consistency, even if I don't agree with your criticism. I don't know how Peacetrain feels about that, so I don't feel I owe an apology for the portion of my OP that concerned the importance of reminding American Christians of the violence that has been, and indeed still is, committed in the name of Christianity -- something that many American Christians are all too eager to forget.

As to the President's statement giving ISIS a "blank check," somehow I don't think ISIS fighters are exactly sitting around planning their next move based on whether or not the President reminds a group of American Christians about the fact that Christians, too, have used religion to justify violence.

[Waiting For Everyman]

51. Your OP

is premised on calling hers "a grossly dishonest characterization of what the President said". (Near the top of paragraph two.)

Excuse me, but her OP had nothing to do with characterizing the President's words in any way, shape, or form, so isn't it really your characterization of her words that is grossly wrong? I won't say it's grossly dishonest, as you did, because I won't characterize your intent. But you have most certainly maligned her character and mischaracterized her intent by calling her OP "grossly dishonest".

I see that as a significant problem.

I think that trumps the "importance of reminding American Christians" about history that is already well known to all, certainly it's well known to everybody on this board because we hear it every day.

Btw, if you think that ISIS isn't going to use the President's words then I think you're very naive. But we will see. It's a chance he didn't have to take.

[markpkessinger]

66. It wasn't just about the other OP . . .

. . . Yes, apparently I misinterpreted who the post was aimed at. I concede that and I apologize for that. But my post was also in answer to the same kind of criticism whatever the source. Peacetrain may indeed hae not intended to suggest that the President was "trying to condone the burning of a man to death in a cage." But since the post he/she was aiming at was substantively the same as what the President said the very next day, then I would be interested to hear if Peacetrain is willing to call out the President on his remarks as harshly as he/she (apparently) did with Manny. I mean, if it was valid to criticize one, the other should be included also, since the statements were substantively the same, no?

As for the history being "already well known to all," I think you might be surprised at how many people have either forgotten it, have willfully chosen to pretend they never heard it, or simply refuse to believe it. American evangelicals are constantly attempting to rewrite history to that it is more to their liking. The refusal by many of these folks to fully consider some of the darker chapters in American history, along with the widely held belief that if America does something, it must be right (or at least, cannot really be all that bad), that America might make mistakes but has never intentionally done anything evil, is like gasoline on the fire of delusion known as "American Exceptionalism." What's more, that refusal to honestly confront historical reality and the persistent, childish belief that America always is, and always has been, the very embodiment of all that is true and good and noble in the world, not only fuels this kind of perverse belief in "American Exceptionalism," but American Exceptionalism, in turn, makes it easier to look the other way when the next instance of American evil is underway.

[TheKentuckian]

50. An apology for what being phony hypocrites in addition to being reactionary, hateful liars?

You think an apology is merited because you assert that their is an invisible carve out for Obama coded into the DNA of the recklessly nasty, stupid, and false post?

[Fred Sanders]

54. So did I. He threw the Scottish Folks fallacy at me...

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. Yes, you're right.

You were the first one to begin addressing the erroneous assumptions. I did read your subthread, it just slipped my mind by the time I got this far. Didn't mean to leave you out, Fred.

[Fred Sanders]

57. Thanks. Misremembering, are we! Me too. If only WE could be national news figures making millions a year.

Misremembering seems to be the main qualification, along with good teeth and hair.

[Waiting For Everyman]

59. I know, right?

[FSogol]

69. Completely Agree. n/t

[Savannahmann]

45. Pfui

The President was obvious in his actions. Now that those actions have received proper outrage, then it wasn't what he was trying to do after all.

The outrage of the man being caged and then set on fire was real. The image was sickening. The King of Jordan is outraged. And he is not alone. Now the President's intent during that breakfast was obvious. It was an effort to minimize the event to prevent the people from getting too outraged and demanding that we go in and do something about the barbarians who would murder a prisoner like that.

So President Obama created the false equivalence and thus the outrage over his statements. His effort to put the things in a context failed miserably. The fraction of the population who think that he is some sort of secret Muslim have more ammunition for their irrational hatred. The part of the population who think he is weak regarding national security have more ammunition as they paint the picture of Extremists doing such horrid things here. Even I who is anti war felt revulsion about barbaric means the extremist use to murder people.

Now, your effort to minimize and explain it all away is part of the impromptu second phase. Look it isn't like that they say. But it is. The President wanted to minimize public outrage and thus the resulting calls for punitive actions on our part. Outrages like the ones we've seen never do what the perpetrators imagine, they don't work to frighten the population into compliance. They never have. They drive more people into opposition.

I could give a long history of that, but why bother? The end result is that with another few outrages, public opinion is going to go strongly in favor of sending troops to wipe out this group of Extremists. The President was trying to punt that football down the field, hoping that the problem would either diminish, or be resolved without boots on the ground.

So no, your entire OP on this matter is wasted. The President was trying to minimize the outrage, and was trying to point to similar outrages in our own history. The problem with that is now obvious.

Yes, we did such horrific things. Yes, we did many other horrific things. But by our standards of today, the people who did those things were barely considered civilized. They were little more than barbarians whose atrocities are thankfully in the past, not the present, and not the future. By attempting to create that similar history, all the President did was demonstrate that the extremists are little more than barbarians, and the backlash is well deserved IMO. Unless of course you wish to argue that the people who did that in the past were certainly civilized and enlightened. Because that's the last line of defense, and it's a place I certainly hope that the President is wise enough not to go.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Pointing out the parallels between Islamic extremism today, and Christianity in the 13th century,

as President Obama did, is not "condoning" anything. And those who say it is are being wilfully obtuse.

[Fred Sanders]

67. Between Islamic extremism and Christian...extremism....same parallels in the 21st century.

[Duval]

71. Thank you, markpkessinger! nt

[sulphurdunn]

73. Read the president's speech

and found no fault with it.

[McCamy Taylor]

78. How could they fault him for criticizing the Inquisition?

Next, they will fault him for criticizing the Holocaust. Just because Obama does not like it, that does it make it good.

[lunasun]

79. There are idiots everywhere . No surprise folks can't handle the history

[AverageJoe90]

87. And it's a tragic part of our history that'll be with us forever.

But in all truthfulness, even the majority of white folks in the Waco, Texas, of 1917 weren't hardline racist bigots.....and, certainly, the majority of Muslims of today are *NOT* extremists and do not support or otherwise condone the brutality of ISIS.

[markpkessinger]

80. I will say this one last time . . .

. . . It has been pointed out that the OP I referred to in my OP here was not, in fact, aimed at the President's remarks, but was instead aimed at a post by Manny from the night before the President made his remarks. That was my error, and I hereby apologize, both the Peacetrain (the author of that post) and to everyone else, for that error. But my apology ends there, because I still believe -- strongly -- that it is outrageously scurrilous to accuse either the President (as the wingnut media has) OR a fellow DU-er (who made essentially the same statement) of "trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage," is a truly scurrilous thing to say. And I stand by the points I made in my OP above about the importance of reminding Christians, particularly American Christians, that their (my) faith, too, has been and is to this day sometimes used as a justification for acts of violence and great evil.

I have amended my OP with a note to this effect.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. I do not know why this is surprising to you ...

did you miss the "President Obama said the torturers are patriots" and/or the "President Obama said liberals are stupid (re: TPP) dust ups here on DU?

[Hekate]

89. markpkessinger: well done, you. TY for getting it exactly right, imo.

That "burning a man in a cage" thread was so outrageous a statement I wanted nothing to do with it. It was one of those low (very low) points that DU is capable of hitting.

In my opinion, the Prayer Breakfast is pretty much a venue for politicians to pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on their behavior with a particularly smarmy version of Christianity. The President must have prepared his remarks with the mindset that if they wanted a sermon, he'd give them one of the "afflict the comfortable" variety. It was a thoughtful homily from a thoughtful, knowledgable, man.

Thank you for getting it and expressing your thoughts so well.