February 26, 2008

Assassination Porn

For several weeks, I've been noticing that a lot of Obama supporters seem to fantasize about their man being assassinated. The creepy NYT article, "In Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama," only confirms this hunch. To be crass, I think a lot of Obamaniacs are fondling this fantasy, unable to keep themselves from noticing that a slain Obama would provide them with an iconic image of great usefulness.

The best thing that ever happened to the left in the U.S. in the second half of the 20th Century was that John F. Kennedy was assassinated (by a far leftist, of course, but for complicated reasons everybody who was anybody acted like the opposite was true). The 1960 Presidential election had been famously exciting, with JFK capturing the hearts and souls of America (well, of about 50.1% of America), but almost nobody today can identify a consistent pattern of what would have been different from January 20, 1961 through November 21, 1963 if Nixon had won instead of Kennedy. Kennedy governed like Eisenhower, just not as well.

But after November 22, 1963, everything changed.

Like JFK, Obama is cautious and crafty. As a President, Obama would likely prove a disappointment to many of his fervent supporters. As a martyr, though, the sky's the limit.

P.S. At least we don't have to worry about Obama being endangered by the same forces of hatred that called for Malcolm X's assassination. After all, this time, Louis Farrakhan is on the young paladin's side.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

People now claim that Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama provides Barack his “Sister Souljah” moment (when Bill Clinton denounced Sister Souljah’s call for blacks to kill white people instead of fellow blacks).

This could be difficult for Obama to pull off for a number of reasons. First, Obama’s mentor and Pastor, Mr. Wright, has endorsed Farrakhan. So in denouncing Farrakhan, Obama would also be denouncing his own mentor and Pastor (from whose sermon Obama took the title for his second book, the Audacity of Hope).

Another problem for Obama would be that in denouncing Farrakhan he would upset at least some of his base, the solid black voting block without which he simply can’t win, either primaries or a general election. I’m not suggesting that most blacks follow Farrakhan, but Obama would appear to be pandering to whites and it would suggest to at least a minority of whites that Obama can’t be trusted.

Of course, if Obama doesn’t disavow Farrakhan, then isn’t his spiel about being the “post-racial” candidate more or less fraudulent?

dodo said...

For the past day or so that NYT article has been near the top of their most e-mailed list. It is number two now.

I was thinking that many of his supporters may have already noticed that he isn't exactly what they want to think he is. But to keep hope alive, he might be better off not.

I suppose it may be a natural reaction to an affirmative action president.

braindead said...

Great post Steve. What you're saying is the left wants the "Messiah" stuff without the heavy lifting of traditional Christianity or Judaism?

Anonymous said...

Uh, Steve -- you don't really think Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK, do you?

Don't make me downgrade you from your current demigod status.

tvoh said...

Even if the O man is a genius in office, the promise of "change" is beyond the capacity of anyone less than divine to satisfy.

I've heard that Gore Vidal said that Truman Capote's death was a "good career move."

As someone from the Boston area, you have no idea how deified JFK was. The amount of tchotkes with your man's image still floating around is probaby double the gnp of Africa.

Anonymous said...

The 1960 Presidential election had been famously exciting, with JFK capturing the hearts and souls of America (well, of about 50.1% of America)

As if. 49.7% was the best he could do. Just maybe you could say 50.1% if you claimed that the voters in MS and AL who cast ballots for "Democratic Electors" thought their slates would vote for Kennedy and not Harry Byrd, but that's a stretch.

Remember, only one Democrat since V-J day has been able to get 50% + 1 of the nation's voters to pick him. One, in fifteen elections.

Frauenhoffer said...

The Messiah must be crucified to purify us of our sins or what's the point?

Obama of Nazar...errr...Chicago's Crucifixion would cement the Narrative of the left.

I'm amazed at how few people realize the new left radicalism is simply old fashioned puritan fundamentalism in new wardrobe.

Ross said...

I think Obama is in real danger of assassination. Not because he's a charismatic black liberal who would make a compelling martyr, but because he's standing between Hillary Clinton and the White House.

Reader said...

John F. Kennedy was assassinated (by a far leftist, of course, but for complicated reasons everybody who was anybody acted like the opposite was true


Yeah, well, I kinda wonder if certain people might've let this slide since, well, there ain't no way that Oswald actually shot Kennedy, and maybe they didn't want anyone inquiring too much into the matter. Kinda like how you never hear the militant pro-Israel types mention the assassination of RFK by a Palestinian busboy in their litanies of alleged wrongs committed by "radical Islam" against the US that frequently go all the way back to the Barbary pirates.

You are right, however, that the enthusiasm over Obama has nothing to do with his actual ideas but rather that they feel he'd do a fine job starring in "MLK II: This Time, He's President".

Anonymous said...

I never understood why JFK became such a magical character in history, especially for the left.

His brief record sounds more like the standard liberal evil portrayal of Nixon or Bush:

* born with an 18-piece silverware setting in his mouth and groomed by royal family dynasty

* being made a war hero for negligently allowing his fast moving PT boat be accidentally run over by a larger, slower boat in a small unnamed night hit-and-run mission resulting in the loss of his boat, 2 of his crew and the risk of those who had to save him and his surviving crew

* stole the election with his daddies money and mafia connections

* put the first 16,000 US troops (advisors) in Vietnam

* botched toppling Castro several times including assinations and the Bay of Pigs

* helped bring the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust to no net gain (removed missiles from Turkey and promised never to invade Cuba as concession)

* did not have the stomach to push Civil Rights like LBJ did for fear of alienating white Southern Dems

* Fraudulently published the work of Sorenson as his own "Pulitzer Prize winning" Profiles of Courage

* Supported coup to wipe out hundreds of Iraqi leaders and intellectuals to install a pro-US Iraqi regime

* Appointing unqualified cronies to jobs like his brother Bobby

Add to this his:

* Undiscriminating and voracious womanizing with everyone from actresses, mob molls and barely legal young does

* his lack of any action to back up his cult-like campaign rhetoric of "New Frontier" hope

* planting the seeds of 1965 immigration disaster that moved away from a European and merit-based systems to 3rd world and family-based system

JFK is the summation of the worse excesses of both Rep and Dem presidents with a tan and good hair.

In fairness, many of the questionable/bad decisions JFK made most other average presidents probably would've made as well (e.g. Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crises, etc). Still, the record is a far cry from the Hollywood storyline.

If the elites and MSM can rehabilitate a JFK presidency into stuff of legend, I can only image what will pass as Obama's Camelot storyline.

manindarkhat said...

As a President, Obama would likely prove a disappointment to many of his fervent supporters. As a martyr, though, the sky's the limit.

Rather like Jesus, in fact. Obama should watch out for kisses in gardens. And there's a theory that Castro decided Che Guevara would be much more useful dead than alive.

Anonymous said...

Obama's best life insurance would be an asian-american, strongly pro-palestinian VP.

Udolpho said...

I've thought much the same thing. My worst case scenario is Obama getting assassinated (or even having an attempt made) and having to hear about Saint Barry (he heals children with his words of hope) for the rest of my life.

If as mediocre a political leader as JFK can be beatified, then the ground's the limit.

Anonymous said...

Steve,
What's with the updates? Are you still there?

Brian J. said...

It's kind of vulgar isn't it? If you can't persuade people, you trap them in their emotionalism.
I remember 1963 and 1968. After Kennedy died you could easier talk about incest than say a bad word about Kennedy. Demoncrats seized the high ground through emotionalism and they never forgot the lesson.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, so the magic bullet thesis gains further currency, eh?

dearieme said...

I was young at the time, but I suspect that much of the sentimental guff about Kennedy was a post-assassination invention. Compared with a crafty old coot like Ike, JFK was a pretty poor Pres.

jkbrook said...

a lot of folks, black and white, are sincerely concerned that Obama might be killed. There is reason for that - anyone who generates his kind of enthusiasm is a potential target, as Reagan, RFK or for that matter John Lennon was.

the whole question of the use that might be made of such a death is cynical political calculus -it doesnt take away from fears that may be rational, given history, for leaders with such magnetism.

Bill said...

I've noticed it too. This fantasy has been going on for a while, but has picked up in intensity recently. The far right is pretty tame these days, so it's highly unlikely anyone could pull it off without being caught in the very early stages of a plot.

If Obama becomes president, it will take a lot of the shine off him. We are headed toward a painful recession, and he can't stop it. The best strategy for the right might be to let him win and then let the inevitable failures speak for themselves.

I'm amazed at how few people realize the new left radicalism is simply old fashioned puritan fundamentalism in new wardrobe.

-frauenhoffer


Totally.

David said...

If you think his assassination would be a good career move for Obama, lifting him to the level of Christ, then just imagine the similar benefits accruing to his actual or would-be assassin. He or she would be the subject of electrifying biopics and books and articles - avalanches and Niagras of them, in fact - for the next 100 years.

Think, too, of the probable advantages to the traditional media. Internet freedom from gatekeepers would be even more difficult to maintain; every free-typing free lance would be doubly scrutinized and likely proscribed from publishing. Only safe opinion allowed. After all, since actions spring from thought (or from some manner of mental content), the way to avoid bad actions is to stop people thinking, or talking.

Thus the government and its fifth column - as well as its first, second, third, and fourth - could find a new lease of life in Obama's death. Certainly a number of newspapers could be sold out of it.

The Farrakhanians would swoop to prominence and influence, as the shocked, contrite, and craven country looks for boots to lick in remorse, and someone to apologize to. That's worth much cash and more. Al Sharpton might be elected honorary President, for example.

To those with an eye to the long run and the big dream, Obama might prove more valuable to the cause dead than alive. It may pay him (assuming such an operation to be feasible) to exchange the lip-secured silver spoon for an eye in his back, assuming his Praetorian Guard should be caught nodding. I do not suggest that any such thing as bribery exists on those rarefied peaks.

Such is man and events, however, that if Obama is found too good for this world, he will probably be done in, not by a crazed Ku Kluxer or Clinton, nor yet by one of his official brethern, but by his hairdresser or bootblack, a la Selena. Saldívars are legion in a Big Man's orbit, and in a Big Woman's, for that matter. As Chester Arthur Sythe-Pettingill, Ph.d, wisely phrased it as long ago as 1919: "It is the little things."

Grassy Moll said...

Of course Oswald assassinated Kennedy. Don't tell me people on this blog actually take Oliver Stone's JFK movie as fact. What a letdown!

Anonymous said...

Psychiatric Quiz

You might be a nutball if ...

1. you entertain the idea that anyone but Oswald (CIA, Cuba, Mob, Oilmen, etc.) shot JFK ... for more than 30 seconds.
2. you entertain the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" ... for more than 3 seconds
3. you entertain the idea that Jesus of Nazareth (assuming he existed) "arose from the dead" ... for more than 3/10 seconds (after reaching maturity).

Hail Darwin! Long Live Reason!

Anonymous said...

Suggestion for another post: what parties would most benefit from such an assination?

- Diversicrats

- Military Industrial Complex

????

Reg Cæsar said...

"Anonymous" (one of them, anyway) said:

49.7% was the best he could do. Just maybe you could say 50.1% if you claimed that the voters in MS and AL

I assume Steve was speaking figuratively, or at most referring to the major-party vote. CQ's Guide to U. S. Elections gives the figures 49.72% for Kennedy and 49.55% for Nixon, for a plurality of 114,673. That plurality is smaller than the Mississippi vote given for "Unpledged" or the Louisiana vote for Orval Faubus. (CQ splits Mississippi's votes as 39% for Unpledged, 36% for Kennedy, and 24% for Nixon; all of Alabama's are given to Kennedy.)


Remember, only one Democrat since V-J day has been able to get 50% + 1 of the nation's voters to pick him. One, in fifteen elections.

Actually, two, as Jimmy Carter made it by a hair. (Assuming all Democratic votes in a tight election are real, which is a stretch! Cf. Illinois, 1960.) But the truth is even worse for the Donkey. After Andrew Jackson, only FDR, LBJ and Carter got more votes for than against in any election, and the latter two were wiped out in the following election. So Andy and FDR are the only Democratic presidents who can say more voted for than against them.

There is a reason for this. Republicans, and apparently Whigs before them, address the people as a whole, while the Dems have always seen a motley collection of groups out of which a coalition has to be assembled. Obama is very much an outlier here-- for the moment.

Danindc said...

Agreed- it would be very disappointing if people on this blog believe Oswald did not kill JFK. Steve- set these people straight. They also probably believ that their civil liberties have been severely curtailed after 9/11- when i hear people say this I just shake my head./

Anonymous said...

Puritans believed in working to support yourself as a moral imperative. Last time I checked, Dems believe the opposite: the less you contribute to society or even your own upkeep, the more morally elevated you are.

To his credit, Obama and even his Mrs. have a whole "self help" aspect to their church's ideology. Michelle has come out and said a few things to that effect herself.

The whole Messiah thing scares me. It is frightening to see that kind of herd hysteria, which also showed its face in the time after 9/11.

Speaking of 9/11, Since when is "rationality" defined as "believing what we are told to believe"? Let's get real. None of us here really knows what happened that day (or if they do, they ain't saying). We have only what we are told and shown to go on. Rationality means treating all unverifiable knowledge with a healthy skepticism. And politics and truth don't exactly do hand in hand.

mq said...

Remember, only one Democrat since V-J day has been able to get 50% + 1 of the nation's voters to pick him. One, in fifteen elections.

Actually, three --

Johnson
Carter
Al Gore

Anonymous said...

I am not qualified to be a Kennedy apologist,as I aint no historian,but it really seems guys here are very unfair to JFK. JFK,like any President,has mud on him because he WAS the actual prsident,and dealt with actual events,as opposed to "imaginary" Presidencies,that mightve been,like Ikes 3rd term or Nixons first term. Yes,Kennedy screwed with Cuber,as Ike before him. IKE allowed the planning of the Bay of Pigs;had he or Dick been president,maybe we would have wound up invading Cuba--a disatrous,wasteful folly--as the State Dept desperately wanted to. Yep,he sent guys to Viet Nam.Didnt the sainted Ike start that,too??We were in a cold war,remember?? The JF Dulles types wanted a war in VN with all their might;read JK Galbaraiths memories of the vicious struggle to get JFK to start a war. He had decided NOT to,from what I gather---you may argue with that. But you cant argue that LBJ stupidly and blindly plunged into VN. And u got the balls to compare JFK UNfavorably to LBJ??? As for the Civil rights bill,which Goldwater (and remember who was a Goldwater girl,but also a fervent supporter of Dr King heh heh)and the Republicans were against----of course JFK was leery of this bill!! IT WAS SHIT!!!!!!!!! Maybe had he lived he would have figgered out a better way to handle this,I dont know! But to say LBJ(!!!!) has some "courage" that JFK lacked,and so he passed civil rights.you must be joking!! As to who killed Kennedy,I dont believe it was Oswald,alone. Sorry! As for 9/11,they caught a bunch of Israelis taping the damn thing!!! Theres "rational" and then theres being a turnip!!_Josh

James Kabala said...

Reg Caesar: Actually, Van Buren and Pierce both received 50.8 percent. (Like Carter, they left office very unpopular. Carter, by the way, literally received 50.1 percent.) Remarkably, better performing than Van Buren, Pierce, or Carter (not to mention minority Democrats Polk, Buchanan, Cleveland, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton) was Samuel Tilden, who received 51.0 percent but lost in the Electoral College.

Your larger point stands, however: Michael Barone (not a hero around here, and rightly so, but good on things like this) once pointed out the traditional (pre-1960s) Republican party was the party of the people who regarded themselves as members of the core of America: white, Northern, Protestant, and often rural. The Democratic party was the party of those who considered themselves outsiders: Catholics, Southerners, immigrants, Jews, city dwellers, and after 1936, the biggest outsiders of all, blacks.

Now, as FDR's smashing victories proved, by the 1930s, if the outsiders all worked together, they could defeat the insiders, but they were still those who thought of themselves to be outsiders, rightly or wrongly, and indeed, they were still genuine outsiders in the non-political halls of power, like the Ivy League and Wall Street.

Nowadays, of course, Southerners are Republican and Catholics often are as well, but in part that is because members of those groups no longer consider themselves outsiders. Conversely, upper-class "whiter person" liberals who often are are of Northern white Protestant stock (although also often Catholic or Jewish) consider themselves alienated from the "red state" mainstream. They join with those who are still ethnic outsiders to form today's Democratic core.

James Kabala said...

mq: No, Gore only got 48.4 percent. (Bush that year got 47.9 percent.)

gxt said...

Is "danindc" trolling, or what?

Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of 9/11, Since when is "rationality" defined as "believing what we are told to believe"? Let's get real. None of us here really knows what happened that day (or if they do, they ain't saying). We have only what we are told and shown to go on. Rationality means treating all unverifiable knowledge with a healthy skepticism. And politics and truth don't exactly do hand in hand.

True, and your skepticism is healthy -- for three full seconds , it's only at 3< that your sanity gets questioned.

Anonymous said...

Josh,

You've taken the first step, admitting you have a problem. We ARE proud of you. Now isn't it time you went to your Intelligent Design Committee meeting?

Anonymous said...

Love the "psychiatric quiz" above assigning "nutball" status to anyone who doesn't think Oswald killed JFK, then claiming the Darwin/reason high ground.

If you have to call your opponents in a debate "nutballs" you've already conceded.

Sirhan Sirhan didn't kill RFK, either, while we're at it. But he's still in a California prison for it.

It'll all come out soon enough.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

Whoever it is that keeps writing that Oswald didn't shoot JFK should just shut up and sing.

Oswald DID shoot JFK.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

***** If you think his assassination would be a good career move for Obama, lifting him to the level of Christ, then just imagine the similar benefits accruing to his actual or would-be assassin. He or she would be the subject of electrifying biopics and books and articles - avalanches and Niagras of them, in fact - for the next 100 years.*****


Not necessarily.

Some conspiracy theorist -- or several of them rather -- would simply manufacture dogma purporting to "prove" that the assassin wasn't really an assassin.

I can't help but think that wherever he is right now, Lee Harvey Oswald is incensed at the weenies who have been running around since 1963 trying to exonerate him.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****Remember, only one Democrat since V-J day has been able to get 50% + 1 of the nation's voters to pick him. One, in fifteen elections.

Actually, three --

Johnson
Carter
Al Gore*****


I assume that the OP meant "Democratic Presidents".

So Gore is out.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****Love the "psychiatric quiz" above assigning "nutball" status to anyone who doesn't think Oswald killed JFK, then claiming the Darwin/reason high ground.*****


Is there a problem there? Seems perfectly reasonable, as far as I'm concerned.


*****If you have to call your opponents in a debate "nutballs" you've already conceded.*****


Really? So anyone who debates a member of the Flat Earth Society is bound to lose after drawing the obvious conclusion?

And yes, anyone who believes that Oswald is innocent is not only exposing himself as a member of the Loony Left but is arguing from a Flat Earth perspective.

*****Sirhan Sirhan didn't kill RFK*****


Right, it was a gunman shooting from the grassy pantry.


*****It'll all come out soon enough.*****

Right, the Far Left view of history will come out "soon enough" after 40 years and more.

The notion reminds me of a comedy sketch in which a bunch of hoods have been waiting for 27 years in a hotel room for their partner to show up.

They hear a knock on the door, and one of them says, "That must be him now".

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

I must reluctantly agree with the notion that those who are most overly afraid of Obama being assassinated unconsciously covet it.

What would happen once Obama was elevated to the Oval Office and life "in the hood" remained pretty much the same?

It would be a lot easier for those "in the hood" who have made it what it is to be able to shrug their shoulders and reason that it's no use applying oneself or making different choices in life -- because "they" are going to find a way to stop you every time.

And yes, the white liberals that SS talks about who use "civil rights" as a means of acquiring moral capital vis-a-vis other whites would be able to make their own use of such a development.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

In the meantime, while Obama is still thankfully with is, hopefully in perpetuity, he should be respected -- if for no other reason -- for what he's doing to the Clintons.

After sixteen years, HE is the one running on their 1992 platform of "change" while they are being cast as the insiders.

But that's not the worst of it from their standpoint. They also find themselves -- for the first time in their political lives -- on the wrong side of the racial divide.

William especially was wont to use black people for political cover whenever he was in trouble -- now that camouflage is gone. At least for now.

Both of them used the "politics of personal destruction" to demonize their opponents and then cry foul at those who tried to retaliate.

It took a credible black opponent -- one who being both black and credible is automatically exempt from criticism -- to provide a backdrop against which that tactic could finally be highlighted.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

One final comment -- has this been talked about yet?

Opposition to illegal immigration is so widespread that a Republican president acting in conjunction with a sympathetic Democratic majority in Congress could not jam through an "immigration reform" package.

Yet somehow the political process has produced three main contenders who all have unacceptable positions on the immigration question.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: ...what parties would most benefit from such an assination? - Military Industrial Complex

By the time the next president leaves office [in January of 2017], there won't be a military anymore:

Spending on Health to Rise Dramatically
ap.google.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — By 2017, total health care spending will double to more than $4 trillion a year, accounting for one of every $5 the nation spends, the federal government projects...

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****almost nobody today can identify a consistent pattern of what would have been different from January 20, 1961 through November 21, 1963 if Nixon had won instead of Kennedy.*****


Nixon would have been readier at Vienna than was Kennedy, and he would have seen the Bay of Pigs through as originally planned with full air support for the Cuban rebels.

It may or may not have succeeded under the circumstances, but even if Castro had maintained power, the Russians probably would have thought twice about trying to sneak missiles into Cuba.

It's hard to say what Nixon would have done in Southeast Asia, but if he had overcome his resentment of Eisenhower to listen to his counsel, he would not have expanded American fighting forces there -- continuing to maintain nothing more than an advisory force.

Certainly, he would not have gone through with the coup of the Diem brothers which proved disastrous and with which Kennedy did not live long enough to deal with the consequences.

Nixon was far from being a perfect individual during the best of circumstances, but Nixon assuming office in 1961 without the stolen election, without the 1962 press conference, without having inherited a divisive war, and without prior assassinations and campus unrest as a backdrop would have been more likely to keep the fatally paranoiac streak of his personality under check.

He would have been a better president in 1961 than Kennedy was and a better president in 1961 than he turned out to be in 1969.

Anonymous said...

Grizzlie --

Here's a Discovery Channel episode of "Conspiracy Test" where they conclude that Congress should re-open the RFK case, as new acoustic testing shows conclusively there had to be a second gunman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-7D1y7Xp7I

And remember that Dr. Thomas Noguchi, the coroner who examined RFK's body, has always maintained he was shot at point blank range --no one puts Sirhan Sirhan that close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination#Autopsy

Grizzlie -- when you have to insult people instead of debating them it only points out the weakness of your position.

Robert Kennedy was not shot by Sirhan Sirhan.

Anonymous said...

Grizzlie -- when you have to insult people instead of debating them it only points out the weakness of your position.

Robert Kennedy was not shot by Sirhan Sirhan.


And whining about the other guy's debating style and stating -- and restating -- conclusions makes ya a winner? Thanks for the tips.

Hey, at least you didn't resort to all-caps.

*** POINT OF ORDER ***
Shouldn't somebody have brought up Hitler by now?

flat-earthily yours,
Grizz Fan

p.s. Robert Kennedy was not shot by Sirhan Sirhan. WAS TOO! WAS TOO! WAS TOO!

Martin said...

"Danindc said...

They also probably believ that their civil liberties have been severely curtailed after 9/11- when i hear people say this I just shake my head./"

I don't know. Is it a civil liberty not to be treated like a criminal when I go through the airport? It used to be that I wasn't, and now I am.

I don't believe that my civil liberties have been severely curtailed since 9/11. I believe that they have been steadily curtailed for about the last thirty years. I also believe that since 9/11, policies have been put in place, that once turned on (by the simple act of some official saying that the Patriot Act means "X", and a judge assenting to it) could indeed curtail my civil liberties. Many laws and policies do not have baleful consequences right away, but do in the end none-the-less.

Remember, it used to be unlawful for the state to sieze your property and give it to some other private individual. Until it - all of a sudden - became lawful with the Kelo decision.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****he was shot at point blank range --no one puts Sirhan Sirhan that close.

Robert Kennedy was not shot by Sirhan Sirhan.*****

He was probably shot by the same leprechaun who approaches me at "point blank range" and takes my keys or my glasses or any number of personal items that often disappear on me in a matter of seconds whenever I lay them down.

I never see that leprechaun and so he's certainly one suspect that might have shot RFK unobserved.

Most pro-conspiracy arguments are a form of sophistry.

David Belin once wrote about how it might take a conspiracy theorist a minute to concoct an argument out of whole cloth and that it would take him ten times as long to check the facts and ultimately refute it.

To my mind, that's why conspiracy arguments gain currency in popular culture. Those in a position to know better just throw up their hands.

So in a normal argument, a conspiracy theorist has attrition working for him, due to his own ruthlessness.

Rather than play that game, it's easier and no less just to simply save time by being ready with a quick insult in response.

Reader said...

You might be a nutball if ...

1. you entertain the idea that anyone but Oswald (CIA, Cuba, Mob, Oilmen, etc.) shot JFK ... for more than 30 seconds.
2. you entertain the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" ... for more than 3 seconds
3. you entertain the idea that Jesus of Nazareth (assuming he existed) "arose from the dead" ... for more than 3/10 seconds (after reaching maturity).



Hmmm. And what do you say of someone who, after confronted with an unconventional idea, only considers it for 30 seconds or less before rejoining the herd? A sheep, perhaps?

Who was right about whether or not Saddam was building nukes with plans to kill Americans with them: virtually all elite opinion in America (mass media, government, both major political parties), or the "nutballs"?

And can I ask: what do you propose is the reason why Jack Ruby shot Oswald, or was 30 seconds not enough time to consider that one?

James Kabala said...

For what it's worth, Obama was asked about Farrakhan at yesterday's debate and evaded the issue at first, but eventually "reject[ed] and denounce[d]" him.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****Who was right about whether or not Saddam was building nukes with plans to kill Americans with them: virtually all elite opinion in America (mass media, government, both major political parties), or the "nutballs"?*****


The "nutballs" had no opinion on whether or not Saddam was doing that.

The "nutballs" oppose all exercise of American military authority at any time for any reason whatsoever and never engage in consideration of whether or not this or that particular military response is appropriate, given the prevailing circumstances.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****And can I ask: what do you propose is the reason why Jack Ruby shot Oswald, or was 30 seconds not enough time to consider that one?*****


That's 29 seconds longer than is necessary to consider the issue.

The answer is that Ruby shot Oswald for the reasons that he explained his having shot him.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****flat-earthily yours,
Grizz Fan*****

Well, well; a fan club.

Anonymous said...

Reader:

Ruby: proof that not all Ashkenazim are high IQ.

braindead said...

This post is hilarious, or is that hillaryous? It starts off with the topic „Assasination Porn", and the threads end up stating that "not all Ashkenazim are high IQ."

This is why I love reading iSteve: What entertainment, and all this for free! And to boot Steve even serves intellectual insight into things which confront us daily. The guy is an intellectual streetworker!

astorian said...

I don't scoff at the fears of assassination, simply because the Presidency has long been a very, very dangerous job.

Never mind Barack Obama's race. There have been 42 men who've served as President. 4 of them have been murdered. Two more (Regan and Teddy Roosevelt) took a bullet and survived. Gerald Ford and Harry Truman both survived near misses.

Get the idea? Even if you're a white male who's never said or done anything terribly controversial, you acquire a target on your back when you become President.

I don't think a President Obama would have much to fear from a latter day Byron De La Beckwith, but he'd definitely have to worry about Sarah Jane Moores, Squeaky Frommes, John Hinckleys, Charles Guiteaus, and all the usual nuts that ANY President would have to fear.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

*****Never mind Barack Obama's race. There have been 42 men who've served as President. 4 of them have been murdered. Two more (Regan and Teddy Roosevelt) took a bullet and survived. Gerald Ford and Harry Truman both survived near misses.*****


As did Andrew Jackson.

Richard Nixon was stalked by Arthur Bremer, which has not prevented some from naming Nixon as culpable in certain Wallace conspiracy theories (Is he supposed to have "turned" Bremer?).

Nixon was also the intended target of some dude who intended to fly his plane into the White House.

Someone once fired gunshots outside the White House while Clinton was president, though the motive was obscure, and I suppose that this wasn't close enough to qualify as an assassination attempt.

Andrew Johnson (who also is sometimes named as a conspirator) was a potential target of a larger scheme by John Wilkes Booth to liquidate Lincoln's entire Cabinet.



***** Get the idea? Even if you're a white male who's never said or done anything terribly controversial, you acquire a target on your back when you become President.*****

Yeah, but if you're a white male, it's tougher to qualify as a martyr.

In fact, the opposite might be true.

I'm pretty sure that after one of the attempts on Gerald Ford's life, Margaret Bush of the NAACP said something to the effect of, well the negativity inherent in the budget that Ford had submitted to Congress had created an atmosphere conducive to an attempt on his life.

That remark might have found its way to the back pages of your local newspaper, but I have a fairly good recollection of having read it.

God only knows what she must have been thinking about the attempt on Reagan's life.

Anonymous said...

One more assassination attempt to consider ... in Miami in February 1933 Giuseppe Zangara fired six shots at Franklin Roosevelt. All the shots missed FDR, but Chicago mayor Anton Cermak was killed. Zangara was charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed by electric chair five weeks later.

Those were the good old days.

Reader said...

That's 29 seconds longer than is necessary to consider the issue.

The answer is that Ruby shot Oswald for the reasons that he explained his having shot him.



Okay, we're dealing with someone who thinks you're a "nutball" for questioning Jack Ruby's word. This guy's hopeless.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

That's not what I said. I said that Ruby shot Oswald for the reasons that he gave for having shot him. It's not entirely a question of Ruby's word - the surrounding circumstances should leave no reasonable doubt that Ruby's decision to shoot Oswald was an entirely personal one, made on the spur of the moment.

But yes, obsession with conspiracy is largely a product of the Nutball Left. It's an attempt to demonize the entire right side of the political spectrum, and it isn't anything else.

Conservatives are all murderers, is the implicit storyline. The moral: Vote Left and bring about a restoration of "Peace and Love" (or rather an Orwellian version of it) in Pax Woodstock America by liquidating all conservatives.

Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the neocons haven't been playing into your hands for the past few years.