Is It OK To Call McCain and Obama Chumps?
In my recent article entitled "Are Jewish People Welcome Here?" I recounted the sad and pathetic story of Obama's pilgrimage to AIPAC and his sellout of the antiwar supporters who landed him the Democratic nomination. As one who had at least a miniscule glimmer of hope that Obama might be a breath of fresh air in warmonger Washington, I watched his campaign with some interest. But alas, now we know. His talk of "change" was a joke, and our friends in the Democratic Party have been suckered again. Remember 2006, anyone? Replay time is on the way.
Anyway, turning to the topic of the day, it seems I received some criticism for calling Obama a "chump" in my earlier "Jewish People" piece. The criticizing poster felt I was being disrespectful, and she pointed out that my Jewish People" piece itself contained suggestions that freedom lovers should not engage in name calling and other such childish behavior. Got me thinking, so here's the question: Is it OK during the upcoming campaign to call McCain and Obama "chumps?" They are (by the way) precisely that, in my humble opinion. So let me take it a step further-- by challenging any thoughtful reader of this piece to submit even a single shred of credible evidence that McCain and/or Obama ARE ANYTHING BUT CHUMPS. Not an easy assignment, I suspect.
But of course, the point of the criticizing poster was not that Obama wasn't a chump. Rather, the objection was that I shouldn't have CALLED HIM a chump. The poster argued that my "chump" language was inappropriate, and she suggested that in the future I might refer to Obama as "Senator Obama," in a respectful way. And in this sense, the poster raises a very important point-- namely, the degree to which we are required to maintain pleasant, respectful (and bland) phrasing in writing and speaking about our ideological and political adversaries. The answer, I suggest, is neither easy nor obvious.
First, of course, there's the element of humor and satire. I constantly find amusement in our oh so serious adversaries, and Obama is a particularly easy target. This candidate is typically engaged either in mindless pontification about "change," or in channeling and imitation of a long dead president. In my eyes, there's something about his pompous behavior that cries out for a word like "chump." Very simply, Barack Obama strikes me as an unintentional comedian much of the time, and "chump" happens to be a favored word of mine for purposes of satirizing his sort of hubris and buffoonery. So in good lawyerly fashion, I claim "humor/satire" privilege to call Obama a chump.
Second, and more seriously, I perceive that pointed commentary is essential in the process of challenging and exposing our misguided leaders. In my view, Obama behaved like a chump at AIPAC, and he justly deserves all the criticism we can deliver-- and much, much more. Obama was talking at AIPAC about mindlessly leading America into a second war of aggression, and his words should be viewed as despicable and disgusting. In my view, we shouldn't shy away from harsh criticism of our so called leaders on those all too frequent occasions where such criticism has been richly earned on the merits. Obama's groveling speech at AIPAC was one of those times. As my friend and fellow TV host Kurt Wallace might say (with his great new phrase)-- Obama chumped the room.
Finally, my critic saw inconsistency in my calling Obama a chump on the one hand, while at the same time I was counseling members at BreakTheMatrix to maintain decorum and civility in our forum postings. Perhaps she's onto something, but I see a couple of important distinctions. First, Obama is not a BTM forum poster engaged in (presumably friendly) debate with peers and colleagues. Obama is our putative president, for heaven's sake. Second, the term "chump" has no racial, sexist, religious or other inappropriate overtones. At most, it connotes an element of foolishness; a childlike naivete; a floundering lack of wit and principle. So I say, if the shoe fits . . .
Anyway, Id be interested in your thoughts on this subject, and I thank our poster-- the lovely Jane-- for raising the issue. As freedom people, we need to find the right tone and phrasing of our words, and Jane is making quite an important suggestion as to what she thinks that tone should be. Comments would be appreciated.
- Rick Williams's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 727 reads
Name calling; what part of the 1st Amendment prohibits this?
I recently posted a new forum entry regarding the origins of "politically correct" speech. To summarize, it is a Marxist concept that originated in the 30's to divide and conquer through ideology, not a 60's original concept at all.
You say whatever you wish, Tom, and I will back your right to say it no matter what. I'd much prefer conversing with a statesman who has original ideas than I would to listen to anyone who only uses others ideas and adopts them as gospel.
Anyone who disagrees with this statement is a chump. And I love being in the company of chumps! tee hee!
I don't worry about nuthin.....
Unless it jumps right out in front of me......
Then I don't worry about it......
Unless it tries to bite me.......
Then I don't worry about it......
I just kill it!
No worries!
I have to agree with you there, and thanks for reminding these people about the first amendment and the origins of political correctness being a Marxist tool for control. I missed the big zionist name-calling extravaganza and don't know exactly what went on. But I do believe it is necessary to ban certain users sometimes, not specifically because of their name-calling or crazy opinions, but because of their total disregard for civility, respect for others, keeping order on this site, etc. That sort of behavior, if repetitive, disruptive, and counter-productive to the mission of this website, should not be tolerated and users should be temporarily or permanently banned for such, but not simply for name-calling alone. I don't think name-calling should be banned unless it is done in a manner I just described, but our 1st Amendment does protect our right to call a spade a spade, or to call Obama a chump, or even more accurately to call Obama a lying, oligarchy-puppet, socialist, evil, racist, black-supremacist, anti-Constitution, ignorant traitor (LOSERBAIT).
It would be pretty absurd if BreakTheMatrix, with the nature of it's purpose and vision, took political correctness to such an extreme as to ban name-calling, especially names like "chump". If you get banned for anything as ridiculous as this, it's not worth supporting this site anyway.
"Is It OK To Call McCain and Obama Chumps?"
Well its OK with me.
lol. R
It's more appropriate to call them CHIMPS.
"So long chumps and chumpettes. Bunch of losers." - Bender
It seems like a fairly safe word to me. Plus, its descriptive and accurately portrays the facts of the situation - we have to look at the context here. In what context was the word used? A piece lamenting Obama for being essentially...a chump.
Although I suspect Obama would not follow through on 75% of what he said - (the other 25% is still pretty bad) people have a tendency to throw red meat to the crowd at those things - especially if Obama wants to cut into that AIPAC election budget. He more than likely promised re-election money for lots of superdelegates that went his way and needs to go out and earn it and spread it around. Which makes him more than a chump; something more akin to a whore. And since he was likely exaggerating (i hope) in his pandering at AIPAC and was technically a liar; he could more accurately be described as a lying whore. But I suppose you can't say the word 'whore' in polite company anymore.
Yea, chump is a safe word.
Much apologies to any lying whores who may be reading this and have been offended.
As far as the free speech thing - - -the way I see it- we may not have many of our bill of rights left - but the 1st is still one of them that seems to hold strong (don't ask that kid from Alaska with the bong hits 4 Jesus sign however) and it would be a flat out contradiction for this site - which promotes freedom principles - to practice self-censorship in this fashion. Its unacceptable. The founders understood the need for an unfettered press - part of that includes unfettered discretion in choice of words in a blog entry on a website read mainly by late teens/adults that users have to login to to read the content. End of story.
You banned someone for calling Ron Paul "a joke" and another poster (with equally bad manners) "a pig" and then beat your chest over the ordeal with a "post of prominence" about it in which you used and someone called you on your use of the word "chump"...
All in all not a grand showing of either magnanimity or wisdom.
Keith Olberman has included you next to Bill O and Bush on his "Worst Person Of The World" list for Wednesday...
BTM is going mainstream already? Nice.
Perhaps you could slide it in like this?
I don't know if this has been discussed, either here or in the media somewhere, but is Obama purposefully imitating JFK's body language? I really hadn't spent a lot of time watching him after reviewing his website (where the word "give" is used 1,567,321 times), but I've seen a few speeches lately and I'd swear he's watched film on Kennedy and had a coach film him and modify his body language. I don't think "chump" would be quite strong enough for that. Is this old news, or is anyone else seeing it?
I also thought it was ironic that he made the statement that education is every American's god-given right. I don't know if anyone made the logical conclusion, but that makes teachers slaves.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
It was on public radio, or an article about it. But I remember well that Obama DID studied their speech giving in depth.
He's definitely trying to imitate JFK with that "enlightened" upward tilt of the head prefacing his next pearl of great wisdom. Too bad he doesn't realize Kennedy was just trying to see up skirts in the top row....
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
long ago.. Even the hand gestures are similar. But back to the name calling, I like the Ochumpa.. and would like to add Ricks other favorite... goofball.. So let me suggest Barack Goofball Ochumpa :)
We all are saying chump BUT I really prefer chimp! What ever happened to sticks and stones.
How about Baruk Goofball Ochumpa ..
Just a thought :-)
a long "u" (ooh) or a short "u" (uh)? :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
. . . a personal favorite. Stooge is also near and dear. R
"Too bad he doesn't realize Kennedy was just trying to see up skirts in the top row...."
Ha!
One can't even get a little eight year old to do homework without calling him/her names.
Much less can a revolution be a revolution without name calling.
The one fundamental philosophical belief Aristotle gave us is this: A is A, Things are what they are. Everything has properties that makes them what they are. We might call A, B, but it will not change its actual properties, A remains what it is regardless of what we call it.
When I say; Obama sucks donkey bleep, it doesn't make it any more real than if I didn't say it. There are a couple things at play here; the truth, and trust on the person saying it. If you say it, I might believe it. If McCain says it, I will most likely just disregard it.
I miss the zionist who is now gone, I miss the cursing, and I would miss the name calling, if it were to go away. Actually, I would probably not be here if that were the new rule. I would not want to feel like a teachers pet and not be able to name call once in a while.
So I say... put your reputation in the line, let the market decide and name call all you want.
Obama sucks donkey bleep.
even if I'm not sure what they're standing for
If you're in the public eye, and you act foolishly, you ought to be called on it... in my personal opinion. Therefore, I no longer call Bush by his title, President. The same can be said for the chump senator.
word, may I suggest a humble compromise
His honorable chumpness the Senator from Illinois
or H.h.c.S.I. Barack Obama (H.h.c.S.I.B.O.)
I'm sure everyone can agree on this
sounds like chump writing to me. R