- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,549
- 9,893
- 146
I love your sense of humor as well as your masterful ability to infuriate the "intellectuals" among us. Good job PJ! :thumbsup:
"We will never have the elite smart people on our side."
I love your sense of humor as well as your masterful ability to infuriate the "intellectuals" among us. Good job PJ! :thumbsup:
"We will never have the elite smart people on our side."
You poor poor filthy swine.... Don't you know you infuriate me? Good job, DS, :thumbsup
I knew PJABBER was a Marxist
Errr. Yes!
Theses on Groucho-Marxism (von Bob Black)
Groucho Marxism, the theory of comedic revolution is much more than a blueprint for crass struggle: like a red light in a window, it illuminates humanity's inevitable destiny, the declasse society. G-Marxism is the theory of permanent revelry. (Down boy! There, that's a good dogma.)
The example of the Marx Brothers themselves shows the unity of Marxist theory and practice (for instance, when Groucho insults somebody while Harpo picks his pocket). Moreover, Marxism is dialectical (isn't Chico the classic dialect comedian?). Comedians who fail to synthesize theory and practice (to say nothing of those who fail to sin at all) are un-Marxist. Subsequent comedians, failing to grasp that separation is “the discrete charm of the bourgeoisie,” have lapsed into mere pratfalls on the one hand, and mere prattle on the other.
Because G-Marxism is practical, its achievements can never be reduced to mere humor, entertainment, or even “art.” (The æsthetes, after all, are less interested in the appreciation of art than in art that appreciates.) After a genuine Marxist sees a Marx Brothers movie, he tells himself: “If you think that was funny, take a look at your life!”
Contempary G-Marxists must resolutely denounce the imitative, vulgar “Marxism” of the Three Stooges, Monty Python, and Bugs Bunny. Instead of vulgar Marxism, we must return to authentic Marxist vulgarity. Rectumification is likewise in order for those deluded comrades who think that “the correct line” is what the cop makes them walk when he pulls them over.
Class-conscious Marxists (that is, Marxists who are conscious that they have no class) must spurn the anemic, trendy, narcissistic “comedy” of comedic revisionists like Woody Allen and Jules Feiffer. Already the comedic revolution has superseded mere neurosis - it's ludic but not ludicrous, discriminating but not discriminatory, militant but not military, and adventurous but not adventurist. Marxists realise that today you have to look into a funhouse mirror to see the way you really are.
Although not entirely lacking in glimmers of Marxist insight, socialist (sur)realism must be distinguished from G-Marxism. It is true that Salvador Dali once gave Harpo a harp made out of barbed wire; however, there is no evidence that Harpo ever played it.
Above all, it is essential to renounce and revile all comedic sectarianism such as that of the equine Trots. As is well-known, Groucho repeatedly proposed sex but opposed sects. For Groucho, then, there was a difference between being a Trot and being hot to trot. Further, the Trot slogan “Wages for Horsework” smacks of reform, not revelry. Trot efforts to claim A Day at the Races and Horsefeathers for their tendency must be indignantly rejected; in truth National Velvet is more their style.
The burning issue confronting G-Marxists today is the party question, which - naive, reductionist “Marxists” to the contrary - is more than just “Why wasn't I invited?” That never stopped Groucho! Marxists need their own disciplined vanguard party, since they're rarely welcome at anybody else's.
Guided by the Marxist leader-dogmas of misbehaviourism and hysterical materialism, inevitably the masses will embrace, not only G-Marxism, but also each other.
Groucho Marxism, then, is the tour de farce of comedy. As Harpo is reliably reported to have said:
"________________________________"
In other words, comedy is riotous or it is nothing! So much to do, so many to do it to! On your Marx, get set - go!
BORED AGAIN? Why not rattle your cage? I propose a dialog of the disaffected, a conspiracy of the equals, a politics of pleasure. Ours is the anomic power of negative thinking and corrosive laughter. The unruly amongst the institutionalised have only themselves - and possibly each other. Let's confer. The choice is sedition or sedation. Any number can play.
- Bob Black, 1979
It was a virtual tie. To win,Obama needed a knock out and failed to deliver. Mitt just had to keep his cool to win and he did that. Neither did anything egregious and neither did anything amazing.
Obama is in trouble after this debate. He needed to motivate the masses to go out and vote for him, but all he did was bore them.
Go ahead and "win" the battles but your guy is losing the war.
It seemed to me that Obama was acting like the candidate that was behind and Romney was trying to preserve his lead. Regardless on who is really ahead it seemed like this to me. Anybody else?
That cliche occurred to me last night too.
Yes, I can see that impression. Obama was the clear aggressor and I'm not sure exactly why. I mean that from a tactical standpoint.
Fern
If you really think that this is what the feeling is then you're dumb as shit.Conservatives after debate 2 and 3: Obama is such a bully! Why won't he just leave Mitt Romney alone! what an ass! Whhhaaaaa!
They may have some internal polling showing that he's behind.That cliche occurred to me last night too.
Yes, I can see that impression. Obama was the clear aggressor and I'm not sure exactly why. I mean that from a tactical standpoint.
Fern
Not really.
Obama was more aggressive, but that doesn't mean he was acting like he was behind.
I still haven't heard a single tangible argument for how Romney won this debate.
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Obama did attack Romney a few times, but you can't possibly come away from the debate thinking that was the theme. On several occasions Obama talking about what he's done on foreign policy as President and why it was good and Romney's rebuttals consisted of him apparently disagreeing with Obama on grounds he never quite got around to articulating very well. The Iran exchanges in particular were awkward, with Obama talking about things he's done and Romney repeatedly saying Iran is closer to a nuke without in any way talking about WHY he thinks that's the case or how he would have made a difference had he been in charge (or how he'd fix things going forward). His "Obama+" sanctions policy sounded particular weak, I thought.
you are such a hack.
I don't understand anyone questioning Obama being aggressive. He was relatively passive in the first debate and he took a drubbing in the polls because of it. That alone should explain why he chooses to be aggressive in subsequent debates.
If you really think that this is what the feeling is then you're dumb as shit.
If you really think that this is what the feeling is then you're dumb as shit.
I think there have been several, but they may have been posted after you.
To me, the question of how we define "win" here is quite important.
I think there have been several, but they may have been posted after you.
To me, the question of how we define "win" here is quite important.
I don't think the usual definition - more aggressive, zinger remarks etc- is applicable. I think it just too simple to apply in what I'm thinking is a far more complex situation.
What did each candidate hope to achieve or avoid in this debate? I think that's a better litmus of who won. In fact, because I think they had different objectives it's possible they both won or neither won.
I was surprised that Obama was so aggressive and condescending at times. If he was still trying to fire up his base, throw them some 'red meat', then he was effective. But I have always thought that Obama needed to be wary of coming off as arrogant and cocky. His one strong point in polling has always been his 'likability' factor and I think if he's seen as arrogant and cocky it will undercut that. And if his performance 'turns off' women I don't see how this cane be seen as win for him. I'm just not sure what he was trying to do and question whether that performance will help him.
Romney should be aiming for different objectives than Obama. First, he needs to appear presidential, something Obama shouldn't need concern himself with. This amounts to not much more than style, stay calm, polite/respectful and appear to be reasonably well informed. Foreign policy is not near and dear to the vast majority of Americans. They're simply not policy wonks, so unlike the economy I don't think there's a whole lot of 'policy points' to be had. The one exception for Romney may be the need to dispel the notion pushed by the Dems that he is eager and willing to start a war with Iran. I suspect his performance was pretty effective at dispelling that notion.
ATP&N is pretty well useless for getting a feel how independents, undecideds and women were influenced by the debate, or even the lack thereof. Too many partisans here. I think the answer will lie in the details of upcoming polls. E.g., did women find Obama to be condescending? If so, did it turn them off? Was Romney reassuring or not?
I've always thought the first debate the most important for Romney. "First impressions" and all that. If so, he was damned lucky Obama just happened to choose that one to not show up. OTOH, it may be that all the negative campaigning against Romney was going to crumble away anyway when people got a chance to actually see him and, whether honestly or not, he was able to dispel the caricature of him painted by the Obama campaign.
I've always thought the debates were going to be important in this election and nothing I've seen so far suggests otherwise
Fern
I propose a simple definition of "win." If you are ahead in the debate polls, you "won," especially if it translates in to an electoral shift in your favor. These debates are 100% political. They are all about gaining or losing votes. There is no other purpose. That makes the definition of who won and lost much simpler. Accordingly, it doesn't matter if you spent the entire debate farting into the mic. If the majority thought you won, you won.
I propose a simple definition of "win." If you are ahead in the debate polls, you "won," especially if it translates in to an electoral shift in your favor. These debates are 100% political. They are all about gaining or losing votes. There is no other purpose. That makes the definition of who won and lost much simpler. Accordingly, it doesn't matter if you spent the entire debate farting into the mic. If the majority thought you won, you won.
But what does that have to do with Obama being in trouble due to not mobilizing his base like he needs to do?
A repulsive farts and Demons get the silver wear out . They love that shit.So true again. It matters not at all that fart after fart reached the ears of Republicans. In their altered reality farts are gems. This, of course, is both insane and pathetic. But no Republican would ever get elected of folk weren't insane today. This is where conservative altered universe thinking has taken us. Too bad the shameful can feel no shame.