Funny political pictures

[DanaC]

But even that isn't really the point. Surely the point is that Obama never said anything remotely like what he's accused in that cartoon of having said.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But even that isn't really the point. Surely the point is that Obama never said anything remotely like what he's accused in that cartoon of having said.

But is that even the point? I thought the point was that our society is so dumbed-down that a sitting president is regarded as having 'scored points' in a debate because he had better 'zingers' than the opponent. I mean, are we electing a stand-up comedian? Do we need to know if he can juggle, or make balloon animals?

To be fair, I was also insulted by the 'who would you rather have a beer with' analysis of GW Bush, but come on...

Now we're going with who is snarkier?

Now 'cut downs' are Presidential?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

But is that even the point? I thought the point was that our society is so dumbed-down that a sitting president is regarded as having 'scored points' in a debate because he had better 'zingers' than the opponent.
...
Now we're going with who is snarkier?

Did you understand what he said, past the zinger?

Romney's criticism was that we have fewer ships now than we used to.

Obama's response, while admittedly in the zinger form you hate so much, was that the number of ships is a poor metric, when the power and versatility of the ships we do have is beyond the imagination of ye olde Navy.

Not to mention the fact that there isn't an opposing navy now that we would have to overwhelm with numbers.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Did you understand what he said, past the zinger?

Romney's criticism was that we have fewer ships now than we used to.

Obama's response, while admittedly in the zinger form you hate so much, was that the number of ships is a poor metric, when the power and versatility of the ships we do have is beyond the imagination of ye olde Navy.

Not to mention the fact that there isn't an opposing navy now that we would have to overwhelm with numbers.

This is exactly the issue. Anything else is a distraction.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

But is that even the point? I thought the point was that our society is so dumbed-down that a sitting president is regarded as having 'scored points' in a debate because he had better 'zingers' than the opponent. I mean, are we electing a stand-up comedian? Do we need to know if he can juggle, or make balloon animals?

Yes, since Reagan's "there you go again", it's been about the zingers, unfortunately.

[Spexxvet]

Sarge, you appear to feel that Obama and the Democratic party have been "bad" for the military, and Rmoney and the repubicans have been / will be "good" for the military. Why? Have you forgotten the have the repubicans allowed Walter Reed Hospital to decay? Have you read heard that repubicans cut funding for embassy security? What basis do you have to be anti-Obama. Please don't let it be the bayonets remark, which you've misrepresented.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Did you understand what he said, past the zinger?

I did, but it wasn't necessary for me to. It was packaged to be effective in the absence of comprehension. That is the insulting aspect of the 'zinger' format (irrespective of who is doing it--this and ALL OTHER critiques of the process are NOT subject to one party or one candidate only). The 'zinger' isn't a harmless packaging, inconsequentially chosen, it's a purposeful appeal to the lowest common denominator. In the complete absence of any meaningul throught process relating to the subject matter, the 'zinger' strikes up points in the 'win column' which resides in a substance vacuum.

I hate that it is done this way, and I hate that it is effective.

Think of people you know who have 'gotten ahead' in 'office politics' in this manner. These individuals are well-deserved recipients of intense dislike.

[Gravdigr]

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

I did, but it wasn't necessary for me to. It was packaged to be effective in the absence of comprehension. That is the insulting aspect of the 'zinger' format (irrespective of who is doing it--this and ALL OTHER critiques of the process are NOT subject to one party or one candidate only). The 'zinger' isn't a harmless packaging, inconsequentially chosen, it's a purposeful appeal to the lowest common denominator. In the complete absence of any meaningul throught process relating to the subject matter, the 'zinger' strikes up points in the 'win column' which resides in a substance vacuum.

I hate that it is done this way, and I hate that it is effective.

Think of people you know who have 'gotten ahead' in 'office politics' in this manner. These individuals are well-deserved recipients of intense dislike.

In the complete absence of any meaningful thought process on the part of the listener, the impact of the zinger will have been made anyhow, even absent any substance. Look at all the stupid fuckers out there who persist in their ignorance, despite actual substance, that President Obama was not born in the United States or that he is a Muslim. For low information voters like this, communication via zinger is reaching your audience where they are. For high information voters, or thoughtful people for whom substance matters, zingers, pre-emptive "our navy is smaller now than in 1916" or retaliatory "we have fewer horses and bayonets too", it ranges from amusing to insulting.

It works because we humans don't always form our decisions based on facts only, but on many factors, much to tw's dismay, were he capable of feeling dismay. :poke: This is true in office politics as much as it is in national politics. Have you never heard of the saying "A ounce of image is worth a pound of performance"? Sad but true.

How do you change this this kind of dialog from effective to ineffective? Make everyone who's listening smarter and more mature so that playground insults like this are pointless. Make everyone who votes smart about the facts of the issues. Make substance feel more substantial and appearance look less attractive. Noble, worthy and Sisyphean. I will work shoulder to shoulder with you in this effort.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

I did, but it wasn't necessary for me to. It was packaged to be effective in the absence of comprehension.

It seems that you're objecting to "style over substance" so strenuously that you are just objecting to style without respect to substance.

The offensive zingers are the ones whose underlying point is false, but they are cleverly worded in such a way that refuting them is too complicated to explain easily. Or maybe they don't actually say anything at all, but they imply things, and the utterer can then claim they never said the implication.

Obama's "zinger" was just a clever way to make a good point, and he explained that point in long form immediately afterward, rather than letting the zinger stand on its own.

And, of course, it could have been cleverer, if he'd picked something other than bayonets, as quibbling over the bayonet count is just as much a way of glossing over the point as is accepting a zinger wholesale, and there is probably another piece of military hardware whose numbers have dropped in the last hundred years.