Is tonight's Family Guy episode about anti-Obama liberals?

[Radical Activist]

Brian embraces Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party. By the end, Brian comes to his senses and has to admit that he's still a liberal. He just has to be a contrarion against whoever is in power. He proves his superiority to others by not agreeing with the majority. Funny episode.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

3. Rush Limbaugh?

I'm sure that's what you meant.

[depakid]

4. The shoe fits there, too.

Pretty sad to have to acknowledge the similarity, don't you think?

[Radical Activist]

6. You mean the similarity

of people who oppose everything Obama does on every issue, no matter what? Yes, I've noticed.

[depakid]

8. LOL- nope- meant exactly what I said

and people like Glenn Greenwald are "worthless hacks" for having the temerity to point it out, too.

[Radical Activist]

12. Why did you put "worthless hacks" in quotes?

Who or what are you quoting.

Everyone knows Obama needs to be pushed from the left. Even Obama asks for it. But I do notice when a pundit, like Rush Limbaugh, ALWAYS disagrees with Obama and rarely, if ever, acknowledges any accomplishment. I'm not sure how to explain that kind of blind partisanship when it comes from the left.

[depakid]

16. Because it's a direct quote from a DU'er in response to one of his legal arguments

there are others along those lines I could have chosen from, but they were more crass & juvenile than agitated & sophomoric.

[Radical Activist]

18. A partisan like Limbaugh will oppose Obama no matter what he does.

By contrast, someone focused on issues will praise Obama when he does something they like and encourage him to do more. To me, that's how you tell the difference between an issue focused person and an anti-Obama partisan. It's true whether the person is left or right. What do you think about that?

[depakid]

20. And there are more than a few here who will pile onto to anyone showing insufficient fealty to Obama

Doesn't matter who it is, what credentials that they have- or what the issues are.

Mirror image of the behavior more commonly seen "on the other team."

For instance, there was a thread a few weeks ago where people piled on (some saying absurd things) regarding a payroll tax holiday. Now excusing for a moment that even basic macroeconomics isn't everyone's forte', the main (though not the only) reason they got up in arms is because some Republican suggested it.

Do you think minds would change if they knew that:

A. Robert Kuttner also suggested it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/maybe-not-such-a-midterm-_b_714019.html or

B. Roubini suggests it here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/roubini-says-u-s-payroll-tax-holiday-would-spur-jobs-as-firms-sit-on-cash.html

B. That Obama himself is considering it, as evidenced here: http://finance.yahoo.com/video/companynews-18928726/obama-payroll-tax-holiday-21999231 (for the wrong reasons).

I think we both know that only the later would be persuasive to some, irrespective of the principles or the reasoning behind it.

[Radical Activist]

21. So you're avoiding answering my question.

I already stated that Obama needs to be pushed from the left. So that's not a topic of disagreement between us which needs any further debate.

Let me restate the question. Do you agree that someone who only expresses negative attacks against Obama, without ever acknowledging anything good, is an anti-Obama partisan, whether that person is a conservative like Limbaugh or a progressive?

Also, could you point to a few posts you've started that are supportive of something progressive Obama has done? I don't recall ever seeing that from you.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

24. And you still avoid the topic. The dishonest spin employed

to suggest that Gibbs was joking about torture is very instructive, yes. It suggests that some people are over-eager to believe any argument, no matter how weak, that makes the Obama administration look bad.

Should I take your lack of response as an indication that you can't point to a few threads you started which praise progressive action by Obama?

[depakid]

27. Proving the point yet again

Neither the article nor the response to Corn's factual inquiry were "spin," but an accurate recounting of rather objective facts. Gibbs callously said what he said, there was laughter about accountability (or the lack thereof) for torture.

You seem to find that acceptable- at least, since it's coming from this administration- and go so far as to denigrate the messenger (although with somewhat less "vivacity" than others).

If you want examples of positive OP's about the administration's policies- they're out there. Sadly, there simply haven't been that many occasions to do so- hence the enthusiasm gap.

Here's one people seemed to like: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8692672

There are others.

[Radical Activist]

31. So you haven't posted anything positive about Obama for a year?

Is that right? I'm not trying to make an accusation here but your example is a just a few days shy of being a year old. You're a prolific poster with no shortage of comments attacking Obama. Even the example you linked doesn't praise something Obama did so much as it's an attack on how unreasonable Republicans are. I bet even Rush Limbaugh has said at least one positive thing about Obama in the past year!

You're very good at pointing the finger. How about this. If I'm the one being so unreasonable about that joke thread you linked earlier then why don't you quote the exact words where Gibbs joked about torture together with the question he was responding to. I suspect you won't do that and instead change the subject, because:
1) Gibbs didn't make a joke when he responded to the question about torture.
2) A joke he made later in response to a different question wasn't about torture. It was poking a little fun at a Corn's poorly worded question, which must have hurt Corn's feelings because he wrote a deceptive blog attack to whine about it.
In other words, an emotionally insecure reporter is lashing out at Gibbs unfairly to get revenge and some people in that thread fell for it.

But, if I'm wrong then go ahead and quote, together in context, the question and joke about torture. You can't do it because it didn't happen.

[depakid]

39. A smart person might look at something like this and think

Gee- we had a supporter with real zeal behind us. What happened?

An even smarter person might look around and think, for every one of those in this instance, how many others are out there in various constituencies who we may have slighted that we might need down the line to back us up. What might we do to further their interests and get them back on board?

What sort of a person or organization would continue on defensively (and abusively) with the same dysfunctional argument(s) and debsaement -lacking any moral compass whatsoever, and expect better results than what they've been seeing on any of several fronts?

[HughMoran]

42. At least you're admitting that you're not a supporter any more

If you think someone is going to go out of their way to plead with a person who is 100% negative 100% of the time, that would be a highly unrealistic thought.

[depakid]

43. It rarely fails to impress how some folks are able to miss the point entirely

even when it's spoon fed to them...

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

44. Oh, I get it

;)

[depakid]

45. LOL- no, I'm afraid you don't

and will probably always remain bewildered as to why the Democrats are behind the eight ball this year, as has happened in years past.

But by all means, continue the bullying and blaming our constituencies. It's proven to have been such the fruitful strategy both in policy fights and in the political polling to date.

[HughMoran]

47. I really enjoy an arrogant sandwich first thing in the morning.

Or is it a midnight vegemite in the land of OZ?

[dionysus]

49. "if only the dems hated obama as much as I do, they'd win in a landslide!!!!!"

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

55. Considering you dodged responding to both points in my last comment,

I got a good chuckle out of this.

[depakid]

66. No one "dodged" your points (although some of mine were deleted)

Suffice it to say, the post referencing the thread where people defended torture without accountability and derided David Corn for questioning the administration (and being laughed at and disrespected by Gibbs) shows rather clearly that some here behave no differently than Bush "supporters" did throughout the 00's.

And look at this very thread- they're still at it!

Are there any limits to it? If not torture and lack of accountability, then what?

Personally, I don't think there are. Seems to me Krugman's observation in February of 2008 was correct- and has been proven time and time again by behavior right here on these forums.

[Radical Activist]

68. If you're not dodging then how about answering my question?

Scolding others for not being gullible about everything they read doesn't make Corn's spin more valid. You've come back with no argument except to insult and accuse others. Here I'll repeat the question you dodged:

You're very good at pointing the finger. How about this. If I'm the one being so unreasonable about that joke thread you linked earlier then why don't you quote the exact words where Gibbs joked about torture together with the question he was responding to. I suspect you won't do that and instead change the subject, because:
1) Gibbs didn't make a joke when he responded to the question about torture.
2) A joke he made later in response to a different question wasn't about torture. It was poking a little fun at a Corn's poorly worded question, which must have hurt Corn's feelings because he wrote a deceptive blog attack to whine about it.
In other words, an emotionally insecure reporter is lashing out at Gibbs unfairly to get revenge and some people in that thread fell for it.

But, if I'm wrong then go ahead and quote, together in context, the question and joke about torture. You can't do it because it didn't happen.

[depakid]

69. The deleted post referenced a thread wherein posters addressed your "concerns"

I didn't post in that thread directly because of the age of the article (though I did note that it was topical due to the Guatemala situation and the administrations continuing efforts to squelch accountability under the rule of law).

Moreover, this is but one of many examples of the larger pattern I've been discussing. If it's not Corn, it's Greenwald or Krugman or Bob Herbert being derided- or posters being bullied for one thing or another in precisely the same manner as we saw with Bush's followers.

That the pattern has been so strikingly similar is interesting, and belies the notion that there are major differences in how certain sets of people behave in response to criticism based on party affiliation.

For the budding sociologists, cognitive or behavioral psychologists or political scientists, this would be a fruitful area of research- and one where someone might even be able to secure a grant and get published.

[Radical Activist]

70. No, I saw the deleted post and it didn't contain what you say it does.

I was right. You won't quote a joke about torture in context because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! It was bullshit and spin that you're happy to spread.

Instead of responding you're back to pointing the finger and judging others. You're not being bullied. You're being responded to. That's how discussion forums work. Your posts got deleted because you're the one throwing insults in this thread. Your act is getting old.

[depakid]

72. I guess we'll have to beg to differ on the facts (or rather, your interpetation of said facts)

but as to the pattern, there's no denying that- and as I mentioned, it's pretty interesting. I don't recall it being anywhere near so pronounced during the Clinton era, which leads to all sorts of curious hypotheses that one could test out using various data.

[Radical Activist]

71. I asked you to support your claim four times now and you failed to do so.

Yes, this shows something. It shows that you desperately want to believe and spread any attack about Obama no matter how flimsy or dishonest the spin. And instead of supporting your arguments you only resort back to crying about being persecuted by people who refute your blindly partisan attacks.
Someone who does nothing but attack a person nonstop is not a principled issue-advocate. That's the sign of someone who cares less about issues and more about campaigning against an individual they want to defeat. I'd respect it if you just admitted that.

[depakid]

74. The point's already been proven- and yet you persist with petty language and crass interrogations

Not to mention- projection in your repeated attacks on Corn (or as noted, anyone else with the temerity to raise an issue like this).

Why you can't see that the more you stomp your feet- the further you're demonstrating (and even exaggerating) the pattern is quite beyond me.

[Radical Activist]

75. Fifth request and you still fail to back up your discredited spin.

Is it really that hard to admit you're wrong?

[depakid]

76. Give it up, mate

The post was deleted by the mods per their discretion- you know what's in there, and I know what's in there.

The facts were duly recounted- and the attacks on Corn were in many cases rabid, off base and quite instructive.

Let's leave it at that.

[Radical Activist]

77. Your deleted post came before my request that you back up your discredited spin.

We both know it didn't support your claim.
We can settle this very easily. All you have to do is cut and paste the quote proving your claim. It's that easy. You can't do it because it doesn't exist. You can't paste it because, as we all know by now, Corn was full of shit.
No, we won't agree to disagree or leave it at that. We'll agree that you made a bogus claim you can't back up. Making accusations that other people are rabid doesn't hide the reality of your own blind partisan opposition to Obama. It doesn't hide the fact that you'll hold onto any flimsy attack against Obama even after it has been disproven. You're projecting.

[depakid]

78. Last post on the subject - you can have the final word on the digression on the example

Corn was absolutely spot on- and accurate based on the record (both from the actual video that I saw at the time and transcript).

His column reflected on what that meant- and as further events have shown, it was quite prescient re: the administration's actions on accountability for torture, due process, executive expansion, etc.. etc. On the latter,any objective person would agree.

Here's your transcript-

Another Spanish question. There is a judge in Spain, according to reports, who is close to -- it may have even happened this afternoon -- to indicting Gonzales and five other former Bush officials for torture of Spaniards who were in Guantanamo. If they go ahead and do this, would the U.S. government cooperate with any information requests from Spanish prosecutors involved in the case? And do you think this is an appropriate action for another government to take?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to get involved in hypotheticals. We may have some reaction based on what ultimately happens. David, as you and many others know, that there's pending court cases about information that the administration is involved in as we speak about information.

I think it's important to understand, above all, that the President has taken strong and swift actions to ensure that whatever actions were either permissible or carried out previously are no longer the policy of this government and will no longer be undertaken by this government. I think that is important for people to hear throughout the world.

Q Just to follow up, have you had any conversations with the Spanish government about this pending case?

MR. GIBBS: I have not spoken with the Spanish. (Laughter.)

Q Or the Justice Department?

MR. GIBBS: I would send you to Justice. Like I said, I've not spoken --

Q I'm not talking about --

MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I haven't talked to Bill, either, come to think of it, on this.

Yes, sir.

The tone and body language as I recall- and as Corn recounts was mocking (a pattern you should be familiar with).

Here's part of Corn's article:

At the White House, Joking about a Torture Investigation?

I was asked to go on Hardball on Tuesday night to discuss the news that Spanish prosecutors are likely to recommend a full investigation be conducted to determine if six former Bush administration officials—including ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales—ought to be indicted for having sanctioned torture at Guantanamo. So I thought I'd ask White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about the matter.

This could become a true headache for the White House—a high-profile case in which Spanish prosecutors bring charges against Gonzales; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; David Addington, former counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, a former Pentagon lawyer; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, two former Justice Department officials.

Several steps must occur before any prosecution proceeds. If the prosecutors determine a full criminal investigation is warranted--as is expected--it will be up to a Spanish judge to open a full-fledged inquiry that could produce indictments. He could decide not to accept the recommendation. And, of course, it's possible that an investigation could end without indictments. The Spanish hook for the case is a simple one: Five Guantanamo detainees were either Spanish citizens or residents. And, by the way, Spanish courts claim jurisdiction that extends to other nations when it comes to torture and war crimes.

What would the Obama administration do, if the Spanish judge currently overseeing the Bush Six case, Baltasar Garzon (who is famous for pursuing terrorists and for having chased after Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet), greenlights the investigation? At the Tuesday afternoon White House daily briefing, I asked Gibbs if the administration would cooperate with any requests from the Spaniards for information and documents. He had a predictable response: "I don't want to get involved in hypotheticals." He quickly pivoted to point out that Obama has moved to prohibit torture at Gitmo and elsewhere.

I posed a follow-up: Have you spoken to the Spanish government about this case? He seized on my use of the word "you" and, with a broad smile, said, "I have not spoken with the Spanish." Reporters in the room laughed. I obviously did not mean him personally; the "you" had referred to the Obama administration. Nor did I mean, I added, Bill Burton, the deputy press secretary, or any of the other press aides in the room. The point was whether the administration had been in contact with the Spanish government about the Bush Six investigation. "The Justice Department?" I asked. Gibbs, though, essentially brushed off the question: "I would send you to Justice. Like I said, I've not spoken" to the Spanish government.

That, too, was to be expected. Often White House press secretaries say, take your query elsewhere. Yet moments later, when a reporter asked Gibbs if Obama had any reaction to the conservative groups organizing "tea parties" of protest on tax day, he replied, "I've never monitored them nor spoken with the Spanish about them."

People in the room laughed. And when the questioning in the room turned to the all-important subject of the Obama's new Portuguese water dog, Gibbs continued the joke. Noting that the dog might be spotted on the White House lawn later in the day or that it might not, he added that "the dog has also not talked to the Spanish about impending torture cases."

More laughter. But I wondered, had the press secretary just made a joke about a torture investigation? Gibbs, like other press secretaries, uses humor to disarm, deflect, or dodge. But was this untoward?

The president and his aides do not seem eager to investigate the alleged misdeeds of the Bush-Cheney administration....

...Later in the process, Obama could even conceivably have to contend with extradition requests. If any of this comes to pass, it won't then be a laughing matter.

More: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/white-house-joking-about-torture-investigation

There you have it- attacks on Corn for noting that in fact Gibbs had been joking about and dismissive of torture.

I submit that the vitriol spewed on the thread was unfounded- but more importantly, part of a well documented pattern that's engaged in here and elsewhere.

[Radical Activist]

79. So no jokes about torture. Exactly. Thanks.

The act of dissenting against Obama doesn't automatically make a claim accurate.

[depakid]

80. Oops- missed posting the link to the transcript and other relevant sections of the briefing

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/

Thanks, Robert. Tomorrow is tax day and a number of conservative groups are organizing these so called "tea parties" across the country; there are going to be grassroots uprising revolts against the administration's policies so far. Is the President aware that these are going on and do you have any reaction to this?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know if the President is aware of the events. I think the President will use tomorrow as a day to have an event here at the White House to signal the important steps in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan that cut taxes for 95 percent of working families in America, just as the President proposed doing; cuts in taxes and tax credits for the creation of clean energy jobs.

We'll use tomorrow to highlight individual and instances in families that have seen their taxes cut and I think America can be -- Americans will see more money in their pockets as a direct result of the Making Work Pay tax cut that the President both campaigned on and passed through Congress.

Q Is anyone monitoring these or kind of paying attention to what's coming out?

MR. GIBBS: I've neither monitored them nor spoken with the Spanish about them. (Laughter.)
======

Q And the dog?

MR. GIBBS: Now the dog. I don't know what I'm supposed to tell you about the dog.

Q What happens today? You know, tell us about the interaction with the dog. Is the dog going to get any more friends coming over or what?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exact movements of the dog. I know later this afternoon, weather permitting, the dog will be outside -- if not, the dog will be inside. (Laughter.)

Q Does the dog speak Spanish? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: The dog has also not talked to the Spanish about impending torture cases, though it is --

Q The dog is Portuguese.
------------

QED.

[Radical Activist]

81. So those questions are not about torture, and the jokes are not about torture.

Just as I stated upthread. It would have been much faster for you to just post this and admit you were wrong.

[treestar]

52. Your demand that a political party court you personally is absurd

Can't be done, even by the Greens.

[depakid]

73. Huh?

Not sure whether that warrents this:

:shrug:

or this:

:crazy:

[treestar]

83. You're claiming the party has to do something for your specific interests

in order to get you back into the fold. Like you are using your potential support as a lever to get some specific thing. Well good luck with the Greens or any other party getting it for you. Even if you could get a left wing representative, they'd have to caucus with the Democrats.

A party can't do well trying to please a bunch of disparate groups with specific gifts. In fact, that is often derided as "pork."

[Radical Activist]

56. So judging by your lack of response, no, you can't quote, in context,

a joke about torture. And it would appear that even Rush Limbaugh has probably praised Obama more in the past year than you have. There's a point when I have a hard time believing it's about the issues anymore.

You wrote: "What sort of a person or organization would continue on defensively (and abusively) with the same dysfunctional argument(s) and debsaement"

Really? Once again, you're good at pointing the finger, but have you considered that this phrase describes your line of non-stop attacks against Obama and his supporters? Do you really think it's going to do anything but alienate progressives who don't think Obama is the devil?

[NJmaverick]

28. You mixed up the word "legal" with "inane"

[depakid]

29. +1 for unequivocally demonstrating the phenomena

:applause:

Down with due process and accountability- Go Team!

[NJmaverick]

48. Your position is wrong and unreasonable

Yet you stubbornly cling to it, which is puzzling

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman]

9. WTF does that mean?

Got issues, do we?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman]

7. Jeez! Brian must post on DU too!

LOL!

[bigwillq]

10. Family Guys is hysterical.

Didn't watch tonight, but the show is great.

[boppers]

11. Oh, that particular disease isn't limited to such a small group.

The self-styled "independent thinker" comes in all flavors, when they're in anti-Obama groups they absolutely *must* have a pro-Obama opinion, and vice versa.

They're usually easy to spot, they're basically just trolling for attention, trying to be contrairian to get a rise out of others (or, as you note, feel superior).

[johnaries]

13. I swear that Seth McFarlane reads DU.

"You're not a Liberal, you're a Contrarian. You have to be against whoever's in power!". Sounds very familiar.

[rucky]

14. When Lois was quizzing Brian about movies...

yeah, that really hit home. Not that I'd ever defend Cocktail, but...

:blush:

[Radical Activist]

15. The political version of hipsters

who prove their coolness by disliking what's mainstream. That's what that scene made me think of. Obama is too popular to be cool so the political hipsters root for Kucinich and Grayson. Nevermind that if either of them were President right now they would be faced with the same Senate roadblock that Obama is fighting.

[reggie the dog]

37. the mainstream in the usa is horrible

i am anti mainstream in a country where health care is not a right, where the death penatly still exists and in which both major parties stand for dog eat dog capitalism, on the other hand i support the mainstream here in france (all parties from the movement democrat in the center to the big left party the socialists and the nearly as big green party and also the sizeable communist party. i support the mainstream here because the mainstream is anti war in afghanistan (we didnt even go to iraq), because health care is a right, because the death penalty does not exist and also because the main left party, the socialists, will lower the retirement age back to 60... i had many reasons to not like reagan and bush the elder and NAFTA was pretty shitty too so while i do praise clinton for having a balanced budget i critize him for free trade with mexico, w did just about nothing i liked and now obama is continuing many of w's policies but whenever he opposes those former policies i praise him too. for instance i was very happy that he denounced fox news as yellow journalism and posted as such here on du, but i also tend to dislike obama as being too far to the right even if he is part of the mainstream because as i explained the mainstream in the usa is far to the right of the mainstream in most places in western europe

[impik]

17. Anti Obama "liberals"

should look for "liberal" in the dictionary.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

22. Liberals railed against Limpballs long before the Sensibles even had a clue...

as to who Limpballs was, or just how toxic he is. For me, it started back in the early '90s -- 17 or so years ago. The whole premise of the episode is flawed since no Liberal would embrace Rush Limbaugh.

[Radical Activist]

25. hmm...

You're right that no liberal would embrace Limbaugh, but that wasn't the point of the cartoon. That was only a plot device to make the point. Brian rejected his normal views simply because he has to oppose anything that's popular and anyone in power. It was a personality issue which temporarily got the better of him.

[mix]

26. entertainment that flatters its audience is propaganda

but i haven't owned a tv in twenty years so i can only surmise its effects on true believers

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Cartoons? Really?

Are those cartoons popular in the general sense per, say, Nielson ratings?

Not to mention they're on local affiliate channels owned by Rupert Murdoch, yes?

[Radical Activist]

32. Yes. Cartoons.

Cartoons have only been used as an outlet for American political commentary since colonial times before the revolution.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. The cartoons you're referencing took a total of about 15 seconds to study and react to.

It blows me away that in comparison to that, today people sit glued to their televisions watching animated cartoons that last a whole hour and either form chiseled in stone opinions and beliefs or feel that their existing beliefs are being validated based on the content of those cartoons.

And I get belittled for being a NASCAR fan...

[Radical Activist]

34. Huh. Well, it's a half hour show for entertainment.

I don't think anyone tunes in to have their beliefs reaffirmed or challenged. Family Guy's audience includes many liberals and counterculture types, so I'd say it's pretty brave of them to challenge their own audience that way. They were calling out many of their fans. The episode had some good laughs and a clever way of making a point. It was healthy self-criticism for a segment of the left. I'm not sure what your gripe is except that maybe you don't like the message.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. You're right. I took a step back, and wondered what my criticism was...

It's not the message. In retrospect, I'm not sure what the criticism was other than I've been blasted for watching things others find useless (like NASCAR and golf) and thought I had a place to make a counterpoint.

Combine that with the fact that I'm angry about how the Dodgers played after the All-Star break, the wine, and the Vicodin, and my opinion isn't worth shit tonight.

Truce. (?)

[Radical Activist]

36. lol

Well, that's not the kind of response I expect on DU. You're supposed to keep arguing a point into the ground whether you're right or not. :toast:
I blocked out the Cardinals a few weeks ago so their ended-season isn't bothering me today.

[Exilednight]

38. Then why is it not okay to challenge the beliefs of those that believe ..............

everything that Obama does is perfect? I believe supporters of the party need to challenge the leaders of this party and hold them to a higher standard. If you don't challenge these leaders, then they will never rise to meet the challenge.

Healthy self-criticism is a two way street.

[Radical Activist]

54. No argument here.

I agree, as I think everyone does, that Obama should be challenged and pushed from the left with healthy criticism. That's a little different than opposing nearly everything he does simply because one is a contrarion. That's what the Family Guy episode was about.

[Teaser]

46. cartoons rule

.

[Vinca]

40. Anti-Obama liberals? I'm allowed to disagree about policies I don't like.

Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not march in lock step. It doesn't mean I don't like the POTUS and it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats. It does mean I won't keep my mouth shut.

[Radical Activist]

59. There's a distinction.

There's nothing wrong with voicing well-reasoned disagreement with Obama. That isn't what the episode was about. It about people who, because of their personality type, will oppose Obama simply because he's the guy in charge.

And I notice some march-stepping in the dissent for the sake of dissent crowd. I find it bizarre that people are so worked up about the public option now when hardly anyone talked about it before the election. Who gave the marching orders that it was suddenly the most important issue to care about?

[Vinca]

60. FYI, health care with a public option sealed the deal on Obama for me.

"I will not sign a health care bill without a public option." Having a recollection of Hillarycare also pushed me toward Obama since that was based on private insurance. Guess the joke's on me.

[Radical Activist]

61. And I suspect the public option became such a focus

partly because people KNEW it was never going to pass the Senate and so they knew it would become a useful wedge issue to drive liberals away from Obama.

[Vinca]

64. Actually, the public option became such a focus because it was . . . and is . . .

clear that people are going to suffer and die without it.

[Radical Activist]

65. And even more people would have died

had Obama stubbornly refused to sign any bill that wasn't anything he wanted because then we would have no HCR at all. I see progress as progress.

[Vinca]

82. There are good parts in the bill, but your statement doesn't add up.

Even more people wouldn't have died because the original people who cannot afford the private offerings are still without medical care. Even some of the people already covered under the bill are left out in the cold. Me, for example. I could get on the pre-existing condition coverage if I happened to have a gold mine in the back yard to pay for it. Just saying kids are covered, young adults are covered, pre-existing conditions are covered doesn't mean they are covered. The families have to scrape up the money for the coverage first and there has been no real regulation of what they can be charged.

[HughMoran]

41. I caught that episode near the end - it was very funny.

It was clearly about the contrarian bitter who feel they have to oppose - something, anything, everything. Winning is never good enough for those who really don't want to win - those who can't deal with being in a position where they have to defend a mere human being. Why defend the foibles of a human being when you can always fight for the unachievable - the ideal?

[AspenRose]

50. We saw the commercial for it but didn't watch it

Was it really Rush's voice on the show, or was it a Rush impostor?

Somehow I can't see Rush doing Family Guy, but I could be wrong....

[Radical Activist]

57. My friend thought

he saw Rush's name in the voice credits. So I'm not sure, but it might have been him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. I think Seth & Bill Maher might have had a meeting. They both seem to be...

sending a message to the "disaffected" among us. Get your head out of whatever orifice, and just remember where we were. The leftosphere relishes its role in kingmaking, and I think they've done more harm than good. I thought it was a brilliant episode, and it was funny, cuz it's true.

[jonnyblitz]

53. so you are implying that those of us who want none of Obama's

right wing tilt have embraced Rush Limbaugh and the GOP? :crazy: please.

any comment I have in response to that MESS would only get deleted.

[Radical Activist]

58. No, I didn't write that.

I do think the show has a point. There are people who, because of their personality type, make it more about dissent for the sake of dissent.

It makes me think of Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall. All they do is attack the President, whether it's Clinton, Bush, or Obama. They aren't very good at anything else. Have you ever seen the positive cartoons by these two? They suck because sarcasm and attack is what they do well. It's not just about issues with them. It's a personality trait that dictates how they react to anyone in power, even when that person is an ally.

And let's face it, I talked with people on DU, even in the primaries, who claimed they didn't support Obama because he was too popular and gaining too much support. They thought that meant he was bad. Brian proved his superiority to the herd by disagreeing with popular trends.

[vi5]

84. Or it could be that they have core beliefs and convictions....

..and believe those things regardless of which political party is in power.

If someone believes something is wrong, and believes that particular thing is wrong regardless of who is doing it or who has the power, that's called conviction. I realize that tends to go over the heads of a lot of people on here. And it's the same type of mentality that allowed and allows people to justify things like "enhanced interrogation" because they convince themselves it's less morally repugnant than "torture" and because if our side (whether "our side" means our country or our party) is doing it then it must not be morally wrong.

I also remember a lot of people yapping about how "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" when Bush was doing things but who now want everybody to cheer along because "It would be worse under republicans."

[JoeyT]

62. Murdoch is a terrible person and should be ignored.

Unless we think he's bashing liberals. Then he's awwwwright!

[Radical Activist]

63. This was from Seth McFarlane

who's a liberal and bashes Murdoch on his show. I don't think it was bashing liberals in general. It was about a certain personality type of SOME liberals. There are plenty of liberals who don't see the need to oppose Obama for being Obama.

[jgraz]

67. "oppose Obama for being Obama"... such a telling phrase

Only someone who supports Obama simply for being Obama could come up with it.