The Anger Of The Left

Pookie said:
Seems like he's just a wee bit obsessed with fantasizing about Hillary, doesn't he?

But, of course, the idea of Hillary being President doesn't make him ... angry. Nor hate either. No way. I mean, he's on the Right. Right?

I'm calm as can be. I won't be in bad shape, but I feel terrible for all the people who will have such misery with unemployment, uncertainty and poverty as a result of the programs that Hillary (as well as the other libs) are advocating and will probably implement if elected. I'll just continue to plan well.
 
Last edited:
Oliver Clozoff said:
What proposed programs are going to create unemployment and poverty?

making health insurance available to kids.

think late 1920s.
 
I'm calculating the US Debt as a percentage of GDP at 69% (i.e. debt/gdp = .69). Which I believe is the worst since the early 90's.

Doesn't sound too good.
 
landslider2000 said:
I took a class 30 yrs ago on MNCs.

Every serious investor = global investor.

Even if you only play the currency markets.

Ishmael
 
Yep, though I'm not an arbitrageur.

Just looking at my emerging Eur/Med returns for past few yrs:
2001 -7 %
2002 3 %
2003 69 %
2004 30 %
2005 59 %
2006 34 %
YTD 42 %
 
landslider2000 said:
Yep, though I'm not an arbitrageur.

Just looking at my emerging Eur/Med returns for past few yrs:
2001 -7 %
2002 3 %
2003 69 %
2004 30 %
2005 59 %
2006 34 %
YTD 42 %

Congrats. That's what my youngest does for a living.

Ishmael
 
RightField said:
I'm calm as can be. I won't be in bad shape, but I feel terrible for all the people who will have such misery with unemployment, uncertainty and poverty as a result of the programs that Hillary (as well as the other libs) are advocating and will probably implement if elected. I'll just continue to plan well.

And I feel bad for your misery over Hillary. No, really. I do.
 
I have this visceral feeling that Hillary may be picking out the drapes too soon.

Perhaps folks weary of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

Perhaps something with Iran?
 
landslider2000 said:
I have this visceral feeling that Hillary may be picking out the drapes too soon.

Perhaps folks weary of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

Perhaps something with Iran?

I hear you, but baring an unforeseen dramatic event, it's going to be Madam President. She'll have her four years. She won't be re-elected to office.

Ishmael
 
ccnyman said:
Ish, hope you don't mind if I post this link here. The arrogance of this guy is just unbelievable. And his lack of insight into his own character. . . .

http://blog.calvan.net/?p=12

He is rather full of himself, isn't he? Just above all that security bullshit he's probably writing about the lack of.

I remember years ago going into a back to cash a check and the teller asked for ID. I was fucking offended. Then I thought about that for a day and then went back, got her name, and wrote a letter of commendation to the bank president.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
He is rather full of himself, isn't he? Just above all that security bullshit he's probably writing about the lack of.

I remember years ago going into a back to cash a check and the teller asked for ID. I was fucking offended. Then I thought about that for a day and then went back, got her name, and wrote a letter of commendation to the bank president.

Ishmael

That was very decent of you, Ish. I think we all lose our tempers once in a while and are embarrassed by it, but that guy blogged about it.

I'm enjoying reading the comments he's getting.
 
The Angry Right

The Anger of the Right
(Source: Naked Capitalism, March 5, 2007)

An article in The Guardian online by Kevin Baker, "The right kind of anger," seeks to probe the psyche of the right, specifically its fondness for vitriolic anger. Baker observes that the Anne Coulters of the world are back to their old slash and burn ways, despite the fact that those very same tactics didn't save them in the run up to last November's elections.

It's a worthwhile line of inquiry, and one the Democrats ought to consider seriously. The appalling thing about Coulter and Limbaugh and all the other wingnuts isn't that they say crazy things. It's that there is a big audience for this sort of craziness. It somehow resonates with some people and reinforces their beliefs.

The left, for the most part, has stayed above the fray and refused to stoop to this level of discourse, partly because it is such a mis-match with their identity, and part because they believe anyone nuts enough to fall for this sort of thing won't be swayed.

Maybe. But I have a feeling that the fallback position of appalled liberals, which is to ignore this sort of thing and hope it will pass, is a mistake. One doesn't necessarily have to stoop to the level of the kooks to respond. The failure to reply is read as an admission that you have no response, therefore the charge is accurate. Look at the damage that was done to Kerry by his silence. He looked weak, and to some, he looked guilty too.

Baker reads the current anger of the right as the product of failed policies in Iraq. He points out that the right has, from the Cold War onward, advocated extreme aggression as the answer to most geopolitical problems. The conservatives finally got to execute on their plan, and it turned out to be a disaster, so they are lashing out.

But the tone, and even the content, is pretty much the same as when the neocons were riding high. Baker's point is interesting but it doesn't explain the repetition of now-failed tactics (anger didn't help them in the Congressional elections) nor does it explain where it came from in the first place.

Psychologists have studied the question of what predisposes someone to be conservative or liberal, as recounted in a New York Times article, "Across the Great Divide: Investigating Links Between Personality and Politics." Some observations are cringe-making (conservatives are neat, liberals are sloppy), while other observations, for example, that liberals are more open, particularly regarding change; conservatives place considerable stock in tradition and loyalty, seem both more valid and more useful.

The reliance on anger, just like the reliance on fear, may be an attempt to push voters into their reptile brains (this was an observation made by Adrianna Huffington). Once you get people operating from there, they are immune to reason, hence immune to liberals.

But why is the anger button so easy to hit in conservatives? Is it anger that others no longer follow the rules (well, their rules) of how to raise children, how to conduct themselves in marriage, even how to behave in public? Liberals are genuinely puzzled about the fuss about gay marriage; I wonder if conservatives are so overwrought because it is a focus for their upset about the breakdown of traditional families. Is it anger over how things are changing so quickly? About America's decline in the world (and the fact that it is non-Caucasians that will be on top soon?)

If I were Howard Dean, I'd take a couple of million dollars of party money and hold a ton of focus groups. I'd get some good actors/improvisors, and cast some to play the Michael Savage Anne Coulter part, and others to play people responding to them. I'd run various types of responses to typical anger tactics again and again before carefully chosen center and center-right groups to see what kind of attacks are worth answering, and what sort of responses are most effective. This is too important to go on guesswork and gut.
 
ccnyman said:
That was very decent of you, Ish. I think we all lose our tempers once in a while and are embarrassed by it, but that guy blogged about it.

I'm enjoying reading the comments he's getting.

Before you go calling me decent, at that very same bank (In FL) I went to pull some cash from my account on a Sat. The teller asked for ID, which I provided. I was informed that the didn't accept foriegn identification. (I provided a New Mexico drivers license.) I tried to inform the teller that indeed, New Mexico was a part of the US. Alas, to no avial. So on Monday I went to the bank president and got her fired.

To this day I have no regrets over that little episode.

Ishmael
 
Wow, someone needs geography lessons!

You've got to be kidding me? She seriously thought New Mexico wasn IN MEXICO?

Ok, this is seriously one of my biggest pet peeves with the education system in the U.S. KIDS NEED TO LEARN THEIR GEOGRAPHY. That is so frightening that a person working at a bank cannot identify that New Mexico is actually one of the 50 states in the United States.

I would have gotten her fired too--for stupidity alone! *Shakes my head in disgust*
 
Javagirl said:
You've got to be kidding me? She seriously thought New Mexico wasn IN MEXICO?

Ok, this is seriously one of my biggest pet peeves with the education system in the U.S. KIDS NEED TO LEARN THEIR GEOGRAPHY. That is so frightening that a person working at a bank cannot identify that New Mexico is actually one of the 50 states in the United States.

I would have gotten her fired too--for stupidity alone! *Shakes my head in disgust*

No, I have an even worse story than that. "The Great Sanford Drug Bust."

Ishmael
 
Come on. There is anger in politics from both sides of the spectrum. To claim one side is angrier than the other is superfluous.
 
Back
Top