Or, is "arrogant" just another word for "uppity?"
via/ Crooks and Liars
In case anyone was wondering where Fox News gets most of its talking points, Chris Wallace last night held up a copy of the GOP's talking points responding to President Obama's apparent diss of the Tea Partiers the night before.
All the other Fox talkers in sight were no more imaginative, a Village chorus pronouncing the president "arrogant" for saying this:
"In all, we passed 25 different tax cuts last year,'' he said. "And one thing we haven't done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year -- another promise that we kept.
"So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes,'' he said at the end of a day, Tax day, on which the TEA Party Express had carried a cross-country protest to the National Mall in Washingon and staged rallies around the nation. "You would think they would be saying thank you,'' Obama said. "That's what you'd think.
Chris Wallace, while trotting out those GOP talking points, declared it "the height of condescension."
Maybe the most amusing was the apoplectic Charles Krauthammer, who sneered:
Krauthammer: I think it was Obama with his usual condescension, except that he ratcheted it up to Code Orange into snootiness, that's where he is now, when he looks down his nose at the gun and God crowd, the lumpen proletariat, as he sees it. And he ridicules them because they're not grateful enough to him.
Wallace should have to produce his birth certificate to prove he is the Son of Mike. All similarities stop at the base of the brain stem. And Krauthammer? He always looks to me as if he has a silver spoon up his nose.
Of course, the word that really springs to mind for these folks is most likely "uppity" -- but they probably know better than to say it on TV. So they find synonyms like "condescending" and "arrogant" and "snootiness."
>
RE: "If he were white"
ReplyDeleteIf Obama was "white" the republicans would have ran him as their presidential candidate.
After all Obama is a RepublOcrat.
Each to his own.
ReplyDeleteChuckles Krauthammer says or writes nothing -- as in not a single solitary word -- without first calculating how it will benefit Likud. As their propagandist, he puts Likud's interests ahead of those of the United States.
ReplyDeleteAnd the underlying racism from him and Wallace: Essentially, they're saying to Fox viewers, "Look here: A black guy is looking down on you. If that doesn't get you p.o.'d, nothing will."
K: I totally agree.
ReplyDeleteKrauthammer is an uber Neocon, Israel Firster Zionist.
He signed and condoned all actions by PNAC.
Then he went to his typewriter to encourage the attack on Iraq.
He is a total shill for the Likudniks.
I stopped taking Krauthammer seriously after he pronounced John Kerry as mentally ill in one of his columns during the 2004 campaign. Krauthammer is a psychiatrist. No serious physician ever makes a diagnosis without personally seeing a patient, and NEVER would any honorable doctor EVER publish anything about a patient's diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteKrauthammer is a hack, nothing else.
Chris Wallace salivated over the prospect of having Sarah Palin sit on his lap.
Can you imagine Walte4r Cronkite being as foolish as that?
I didn't think so.
Wallace and Krauthammer are partisan hacks and not to be taken seriously on anything.
FOX is not a news organization, it's a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
I think when Kraut had his swimming accident, something went awry in his brain. He really seems to be a very bitter and twisted man. Can't imagine going to him for therapy!
ReplyDeleteAnd Chris is just, well, Chris. "Dum."
Shaw - No serious physician ever makes a diagnosis without personally seeing a patient, and NEVER would any honorable doctor EVER publish anything about a patient's diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteAs Shaw states, this constitutes a fundamental breach of ethics.
Psychiatry and politics make strange bed fellows. Remember this guy? The former psychiatrist is now on trial for war crimes.
Octo! The link doesn't work and now I'm dying of curiosity.
ReplyDeleteA good attempt to fabricate racism where none exists.
ReplyDeleteLet's put it to the test. I searched on google for arrogant George W Bush and arrogant Barack Obama, and the large totals for both were only slightly different. 620,000 for Bush and 870 for Obama. The number is a lot closer when you remember the fact that many of the old Bush-hating pages that would have called him arrogant have faded, and there were fewer web pages back then anyway. So Bush was obviously as uppity as Obama.
-----------
Reality: Thanks for the blast of antisemitism from you. There are indeed some for whom the "neocon' insult is part of a anti-Jewish worldview. I can see you are one of them. How dare he oppose the extermination of the Israelis. People who do that are accused of being "Israel Firsters".
I see that you were at bashing Krauthammer for being Jewish. Shaw, tn and others are able to easily criticise him without using tired antisemitic epithets.
Octo: The This Guy link you gave is bad. Might want to try another, or give his name.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of one of the few times I listened to Michael Weiner. He was ranting about how liberalism is a mental illness. Over and over. This is one reason I can't stand the guy. Sure, he's not a doc like Krauthammer is, but I hardly think this excuses him.
K: "As their propagandist, he puts Likud's interests ahead of those of the United States."
ReplyDeleteIt's the Zionist Occupied Government, I tell ya! Krauthammer is nothing more than a stooge of the Elders of Zion.
DMARK:
ReplyDeleteThere was nothing antisemitic about my remark.
I am a devout ANTI-Zionist. Krauthammer and his fellow travelers are Zionists. If you are in the same camp as they are then that is your call, not mine.
Nice try at playing the antisemitic card. Usually the Israel Firsters play it much later.
Repeat of comment left on the post about the signs:
ReplyDeleteArrogant is just a euphemism for uppity when applied to people of a certain color. And they're both euphemisms for Nigger. Translated, that means racist.
What do you mean by "Tea Party Class"? Do I want to know?
ReplyDeleteK - I doubt it. Must be an oxymoron?
ReplyDeleteReality said: "There was nothing antisemitic about my remark.
ReplyDeleteI am a devout ANTI-Zionist."
Which means you are devoutly anti-semitic. That's a nice code word that people who hate Jews hide behind. Like someone who in the 1960s says they aren't racist but they really hate the idea of civil rights.
I believe that Jews, even those in Israel, have a right to exist. And I detest those who call for their extermination, elimination, or expulsion.
I usually read elsewhere the "Israel First" claim as an epithet against those who don't wnat the Israelis eliminated. Pat Buchanan commonly uses this. The anti "zionist" rhetoric typically goes along with those who deny the Holocaust, and decry "Jewish control of the media".
Using the "Israel First" term against those who merely believe that Jews and Israel have a right to exist is similar to calling all civil rights proponents black supremacists.
"Nice try at playing the antisemitic card"
Actually you played it first.
tn: "Arrogant is just a euphemism for uppity when applied to people of a certain color. And they're both euphemisms for Nigger. Translated, that means racist."
ReplyDeleteInteresting contrast between the code-words thrown out by Reality the neo-nazi above, and a word such as "arrogant" which has commonly been used against white Presidents prior to Obama.
Calling Obama arrogant means treating him like his white predecessors, who were frequently called arrogant also.
Visit this page for another example of an antisemitic raver using the "Israel First" term. This raver rants of wild conspiracies including "AIPAC" controlling the US government. I've seen this before. It's all part of the neo-nazi, Stormfront playbook.
ReplyDeleteI google "arrogant Obama" and get 1,900,000 hits on the man who has been president for 15 month. I google "arrogant Bush" and get 2,100,000 hits for the man who was president for 8 years. But dmarks has already said that that's irrelevant, so I don't know why he keeps bringing it up. It certainly lends no credence to his point while it strengthens the argument that Obama is treated differently.
ReplyDeleteBill Gates the Elder came out today for a tax on wealth. According to dmarks, this makes Gates a self-loathing rich man.
It all comes down to this: If you don't agree with dmarks' version of right-wing political correctness straight down the line, you're a race-baiting anti-Semite who hates America.
"it strengthens the argument that Obama is treated differently."
ReplyDeleteBut no one has addressed the fact that Bush was, in fact, arrogant to the point of being a burlesque show all his own and ensuring the careers of countless comedians. Commander Guy - The decider, the Warpresident, parading around in a flight suit -- but has Obama declared that all acts of a president are ipso facto legal? Has he used signing statements to exempt himself from the law? His smirks and sneers and snarky put downs were remarked upon all over the planet for 8 years.
We're comparing inches to light years here and making a false equivalence of cosmic proportions.
Beyond the fact that Obama would be seen as arrogant by a substantial number of Americans just for moving his black family int the White house, some people actually condemn him for being obsequious and are getting away with having it both ways.
To me, he's being called arrogant because Bush was arrogant. It's been the strategy since the Republicans got back at the Democrats for watergate by reinacting it against Clinton and they ar getting back at the Dems for the humiliation and defeat they earned by backing Bush.
Biggest spending president ever? Why then Obama is a big spender. Bush lied? Why then they'll shout "you lie" when he talks. Dictatorial policies - an assault on the bill of rights? Why then Obama is a tyrant.
Infantile, but it works.
"But no one has addressed the fact that Bush was, in fact, arrogant to the point of being a burlesque show all his own and ensuring the careers of countless comedians."
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of a partisan view. Those on the other side call Obama arrogant for the same reasons.
People that ass-ume are arrogant.
ReplyDelete"A perfect example of a partisan view. Those on the other side call Obama arrogant for the same reasons."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Obama is called arrogant because he put a couple of Republican politicians in their place during health care summit.
Otherwise, when did Obama call himself the decider? When did he parade around in flight suit? How many signing statements has he made? When did he invoke a foreign policy that amounted to flopping his you-know-what on a table and making the rest of the world look at it? When did he invade a country believing that he could transform the entire Middle East into a Jeffersonian democracy? When did he lie about the reasons for leading the country into war because he knew best? When did Chuckles Krauthammer or Faux News or the teabaggers get on their high horses about any of this?
Your response to anyone who lays out a reasoned case is to call them partisan or an anti-Semite or a race baiter. How about dropping that ad hominem responses and making an actual argument? Although the one time you tried, you immediately sandbagged yourself, so maybe you should stick to name calling.
BTW, I told my anti-Zionist friend that she was a self-hating Jew. She couldn't stop laughing.
This is where some of this Anti-Semite [rhetoric] comes from. Note the date. And the W green lights.
ReplyDeletehttp://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html
K said: "When did he invoke a foreign policy that amounted to flopping his you-know-what on a table and making the rest of the world look at it?"
ReplyDeleteNo matter how you slice it, that is one bizarre statement. And it makes no sense at all.
"When did he lie about the reasons for leading the country into war"
Bush did not. By claiming this, you are the one lying.
Anyway, half of the country can come up with as many reasons to call Obama arrogant as the other half did to call Bush arrogant.
"Your response to anyone who lays out a reasoned case is to call them partisan or an anti-Semite or a race baiter.
I do not respond to reasoned cases this way. Ever. However, if someone bashes people for their race, I will point out the fact of their racism. If someone uses explicit non-vague codewords to bash Jews, I will point out the fact of their antisemitism.
" so maybe you should stick to name calling."
Like you do with the neo-Nazi language you used to insult Krauthammer? It's good to point out here that tnlib and others are able to make reasoned points against Krauthammer without getting antisemitic.
The neo-nazis repeatedly sandbag themselves here.
(see Shaw's comments above with sharp criticism of Charles Krauthammer that never descend into antisemitism. I have no problem with that. She's partisan, sure, but there's no need to point out the fact of her antisemitism because she's never shown any).
ReplyDeleteTo address an earlier comment from K:
ReplyDeleteThanks for finding even more hits on arrogant Bush than on arrogant Obama. You prove my point.
I don't know why you even brought it up, because it further disproves any point you were trying to make. Perhaps you just have no idea what you are saying sometimes.
"Bill Gates the Elder came out today for a tax on wealth. According to dmarks, this makes Gates a self-loathing rich man."
I dare you to come up with a quote where I said anyone was a self-loathing rich man. Silence. Well, of course. I never said that, and you know it.
Besides, you are probably mangling the quotation. Gates would be a complete boob to ask for a tax on wealth, because one already exists.
"It all comes down to this: If you don't agree with dmarks' version of right-wing political correctness straight down the line, you're a race-baiting anti-Semite who hates America."
Caught you in a lie. I only use the antisemitic term to accurate describe those who express hatred of Jews. I have rarely if ever used the term "hates America" ever at all. Least of all against the liberals on these blogs. That's because hardly any are antisemites.
Finally, the term "right-wing political correctness" is rather curious. This has nothing to do with political correctness at all. But it does remind me of right-wingers who use the N word (like you use antisemitic terms) ahd get all whiny when people complain.
Washington state has no income tax, so there is in fact no tax on wealth here.
ReplyDeleteIt is neither neo-Nazi nor anti-Semitic to disagree with Charles Krauthammer or to question his motives. It's neither anti-Semitic nor neo-Nazi to be skeptical of Zionism for the simple reason that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not the same thing. Uri Avnery explains it better than I can, but here's the money quote:
Can a person be an anti-Zionist without being an anti Semite?
Absolutely yes. Zionism is a political creed and must be treated like any other. One can be anti-Communist without being anti-Chinese, anti- Capitalist without being anti American, anti-Globalist, anti-Anything.
Yes, they are not the same thing. But there is significant overlap. I also noticed that he did not join the anti-Zionist chorus for the elimination of Israel.
ReplyDeleteCriticizing Israel for its actions is one thing. Criticizing a nation for existing is another thing entirely.
Thanks for clarifying on "Washington state has no income tax, so there is in fact no tax on wealth here."
But that is not a complete picture, is it? Your statement would have us think that Washington State is a haven of fair taxation. Actually, the citizens of this state are subject to the same taxes on wealth that citizens in the rest of the US are.
The proposed Gates tax is for Washington state only. Since Washington's taxes are regressive, I wouldn't call it a have for fair taxation.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I'm mystified by the rest of your point. What taxes on wealth? The top bracket has come down steadily since the 60s. The capital gains rate is miniscule; even Warren Buffet says that it's too low. And the wealthy pay a much Soc Sec tax rate than anyone else.
So I guess I'm missing the point. Not that I spend much time worrying about the wealthy having to pay their taxes.
"Regressive" and "fair" both judgment calls. Opinions about a tax policy that mean little more than saying it is good or bad, I will agree. I think the policy is fair, you think it is regressive.
ReplyDelete"I have to admit that I'm mystified by the rest of your point. What taxes on wealth? The top bracket has come down steadily since the 60s."
And even after this, it is still excessively high.
"The capital gains rate is miniscule"
But it does exist, robs people of a lot of money (most of whom are the non-rich) and discourages investment.
Any myth that wealth is not taxed in the US is dispelled by the fact that the top 1% pays more than 1/3 of the tax dollars.
"So I guess I'm missing the point. Not that I spend much time worrying about the wealthy having to pay their taxes."
Well, I'm not greedy and jealous, and I don't think that those who have worked harder and earned more money than I have should be clobbered and "cut down to size" with excessive taxation.
Especially when this ill-conceived class-warfare idea has unintented consequences. Like the "luxury tax" on expensive boats. Intended to soak the rich, it instead cut boat sales and construction, and a factory near me was partially closed do to it. Workers laid off. Now, how much do you think the rich who were targetted by this tax suffered?
A tax whereby the tax rate decreases as income rises is by definition a regressive tax. Social Security is unquestionably a regressive tax. Some economists argue that the economic activity of taxpayers comes into play when defining regressivity, implying that flat taxes can be regressive. You can argue the point, but either way progressive, flat, and regressive taxes are specific policy terms and not rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest, I'm too busy sobbing to write about it.