4 ms·

How is the 79 oil crisis an example of Carter getting "played" exactly?

DonHopkins 5y ago
Or the sensationalized "killer rabbit attack" for that matter. The fact that someone would bend over backwards to misinterpret a sensationalized incident with a wild animal as Carter "being played" says more about that person's preconceived political ideology than Carter's, and identifies them as one of Carter's "political and ideological opponents". How exactly does a swimming rabbit "play" a human being, or frame him as hapless and enfeebled? >The incident with the rabbit became fodder for political and ideological opponents who wanted to frame Carter's presidency as hapless and enfeebled, although the event's proximity to the U.S. release of the comedy feature film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which includes scenes of a killer rabbit slaying humans, led to some people describing Carter as having "fended off a killer rabbit" instead. To get back to the actual point of this discussion, why do you believe that the sensationalized story about Carter "being attacked by a bunny" is more indicative of whether Carter was hapless, enfeebled, or getting played, than the objective historical fact that he bravely and selflessly risked his own life and health by saving a Canadian nuclear reactor after a meltdown? Edit: I saw that. You just edited your comment to tell me that editing my comment (to add more information) is bad form, then you quickly edited your comment again to remove that remark after you remembered that was exactly what you were doing and have already done several times in this discussion, yourself (to change the meaning of your post). And that shows your intellectual dishonesty. So please stick to the discussion topic and reply to the points I raised, instead of hypocritically admonishing me not to do exactly what you've already just done repeatedly (like your "Racism bad" addendum -- we all already know that, but your original "So?" post sounded like you didn't believe that, so you had to add that obvious disclaimer, followed by more racism apologetic non-sequiturs, attempting to excuse Reagan's racism by pointing out that he used to be a Democrat). Denying and making excuses and carrying the water for racism is much worse form than editing comments, but "there you go again", to quote Reagan.
- recuter 5y ago
  The same way choking on a pretzel would..
  - wallfacer120 5y ago
    Ah, so it made him look uncool. It was something that comedians could make jokes about. Because that's how you judge presidents.
    - recuter 5y ago
      Here are some judgmental British skinheads laughing their asses off about it and carrying water for racists, viewer discretion is advised: https://youtu.be/gwgzTsO46yc?t=26 https://youtu.be/gwgzTsO46yc?t=26
      - wallfacer120 5y ago
        What is it that you think this proves?
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        It proves that's the kind of stuff he spends his time watching on youtube, he believes it supports his own argument and point of view, so he recommends that other people spend their time watching it too. On the other hand, I'd rather spend my time watching and recommend other people watch stuff like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30969388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30969388 (For whatever reason, that's not available on youtube. My pet conspiracy theory about why not is that the Pepsi Corporation suppressed it because they don't want anyone to watch it! So I included a partial transcript to save you from being tracked and receiving targeted advertisements for watching it. ;) )
        robonerd 5y ago
        > It proves that's the kind of stuff he spends his time watching on youtube The video recuter linked above is a from Tom Scott. Tom Scott is not a skinhead or any other sort of racist.

Or the sensationalized "killer rabbit attack" for that matter. The fact that someone would bend over backwards to misinterpret a sensationalized incident with a wild animal as Carter "being played" says more about that person's preconceived political ideology than Carter's, and identifies them as one of Carter's "political and ideological opponents". How exactly does a swimming rabbit "play" a human being, or frame him as hapless and enfeebled? >The incident with the rabbit became fodder for political and ideological opponents who wanted to frame Carter's presidency as hapless and enfeebled, although the event's proximity to the U.S. release of the comedy feature film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which includes scenes of a killer rabbit slaying humans, led to some people describing Carter as having "fended off a killer rabbit" instead. To get back to the actual point of this discussion, why do you believe that the sensationalized story about Carter "being attacked by a bunny" is more indicative of whether Carter was hapless, enfeebled, or getting played, than the objective historical fact that he bravely and selflessly risked his own life and health by saving a Canadian nuclear reactor after a meltdown? Edit: I saw that. You just edited your comment to tell me that editing my comment (to add more information) is bad form, then you quickly edited your comment again to remove that remark after you remembered that was exactly what you were doing and have already done several times in this discussion, yourself (to change the meaning of your post). And that shows your intellectual dishonesty. So please stick to the discussion topic and reply to the points I raised, instead of hypocritically admonishing me not to do exactly what you've already just done repeatedly (like your "Racism bad" addendum -- we all already know that, but your original "So?" post sounded like you didn't believe that, so you had to add that obvious disclaimer, followed by more racism apologetic non-sequiturs, attempting to excuse Reagan's racism by pointing out that he used to be a Democrat). Denying and making excuses and carrying the water for racism is much worse form than editing comments, but "there you go again", to quote Reagan.

recuter 5y ago
The same way choking on a pretzel would..
- wallfacer120 5y ago
  Ah, so it made him look uncool. It was something that comedians could make jokes about. Because that's how you judge presidents.
  - recuter 5y ago
    Here are some judgmental British skinheads laughing their asses off about it and carrying water for racists, viewer discretion is advised: https://youtu.be/gwgzTsO46yc?t=26 https://youtu.be/gwgzTsO46yc?t=26
    - wallfacer120 5y ago
      What is it that you think this proves?
      - DonHopkins 5y ago
        It proves that's the kind of stuff he spends his time watching on youtube, he believes it supports his own argument and point of view, so he recommends that other people spend their time watching it too. On the other hand, I'd rather spend my time watching and recommend other people watch stuff like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30969388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30969388 (For whatever reason, that's not available on youtube. My pet conspiracy theory about why not is that the Pepsi Corporation suppressed it because they don't want anyone to watch it! So I included a partial transcript to save you from being tracked and receiving targeted advertisements for watching it. ;) )
        robonerd 5y ago
        > It proves that's the kind of stuff he spends his time watching on youtube The video recuter linked above is a from Tom Scott. Tom Scott is not a skinhead or any other sort of racist.