The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

I do?

I thought I simply expressed a desire to see the political discourse in the country become a little better mannered. Racist me, keepin' down the white man.

Remember... If a Republican does something bad, it's a Democrat's fault.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

I do?

I thought I simply expressed a desire to see the political discourse in the country become a little better mannered. Racist me, keepin' down the white man.

It was a genuine question.

You had said you hoped people were so afraid of being called racists they wouldn't oppose the President. The only reason they would have that fear is if a charge of racism was a used and accepted political tool when no racism exists.

[Alex]

I honestly don't know if I believe Obama. I think it is likely he recognizes what I said earlier in that regardless of how much racism is involved in the vocal protest, except for instances where it can quite explicitly be exposed as racist it is politically inapt to say so.

For example, most of those people opposing Obama's policy proposals would have even if they'd been proposed by a boring middle-aged white guy. But maybe it is latent racism that takes many people's opposition and bumps it up to anger that gets them out to rallies and town halls, etc.

It is not false to say racism is contributing significantly to the atmosphere. However, it does no good to say so since the individual acts of racism generally can't be identified and it is a measurement of the group average and nobody believes it applies to them (and it won't apply to a lot of people). So, to use a phrase of trade, everybody has plausible deniability ("I'm sure some people are racist but surely not me!").

And, from one perspective it is a sign of improvement that, in general, we've advanced to passive racism of a nature that I suspect is unrecognized in even the people altered by it. Moving to intangible is good, and I'd say it is intangible because they (also subconsciously) recognize that overt is not at all acceptable. And intangible is a lot harder to pass on to the children.

[scaeagles]

I don't know, WB.....it seemed pretty vitriolic when Bush was accused of being behind the 9/11 attacks as justification for war. It seemed pretty vitriolic when Gore said the Bush betrayed our country. It seemed pretty vitriolic when Reagan was accused of wanting to starve poor people. There's all sorts of vitriol out there and it always seems worse when it it pointed at the person you find yourself supporting.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't know, WB.....it seemed pretty vitriolic when Bush was accused of being behind the 9/11 attacks as justification for war. It seemed pretty vitriolic when Gore said the Bush betrayed our country. It seemed pretty vitriolic when Reagan was accused of wanting to starve poor people. There's all sorts of vitriol out there and it always seems worse when it it pointed at the person you find yourself supporting.

Yes, there was vitriol directed at Bush. But, as I have pointed out before, they were mostly directed at what he had actually done. The vitriol directed at Obama is of a whole different order. Not only are they protesting over things that Obama hasn't done or has no intention of doing (Sending conservatives to concentration camps?! WTF?), but they are doing so in near violent paranoid delusional manner.

Most of the silly claims against Bush just caused me to roll my eyes. The things these birthers and teabaggers come up with truely frighten me.

Delude yourself that these are merely mild mannered conservatives protesting Obama's "spendthrift" policies all you want. Their signs and shouts tell a different story.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Yes, there was vitriol directed at Bush. But, as I have pointed out before, they were mostly directed at what he had actually done. The vitriol directed at Obama is of a whole different order. Not only are they protesting over things that Obama hasn't done or has no intention of doing (Sending conservatives to concentration camps?! WTF?), but they are doing so in near violent paranoid delusional manner.

Most of the silly claims against Bush just caused me to roll my eyes. The things these birthers and teabaggers come up with truely frighten me.

Delude yourself that these are merely mild mannered conservatives protesting Obama's "spendthrift" policies all you want. Their signs and shouts tell a different story.

JW summed up my intended response perfectly. The Great Deciderer and his cronies pushed the war, deregulation, changed the rules on enemy combatants, denied due process to citizens of this country, and........bloody hell, the list goes on forever. Most of the people who are so angry right now are angry at the wrong person, but Obama knew when he took office this would happen. I don't remember too many elected officials disrespecting the President when he addressed the House, or inciting people to violence or talk of secession. They also manipulated terror warnings for political gain- That was the reason for the Goering statement by Byrd, and if you have a problem with that, then go talk to Tom Ridge. People are so pissed at what Obama might do, when they should be furious at what GW did do.

[Gn2Dlnd]

I want to hear Emily Litella do a rant on "What's all this about banning clothes?!"

[innerSpaceman]

To which I will add only ... how do we know the opposition to Obama and/or the policies he represents is not due to racism? I can't answer that, and neither can scaeagles.



But from the interviews I've seen of the teabaggers who protested in D.C. on 9/12, racism seems the only logical reason outside of stupidity. Take your pick. Most of them said they were freaked out about runaway spending. Where were they during the Bush years when a zero deficit when to a $500 trillion deficit?

Granted, they weren't losing their jobs and their homes at alarming rates back then, and so they weren't motivated so much by terror. But these people who equate Obama with Stalin and The H. Word because "suddenly" spending is out of control while there was nary a teabag in sight during Dubbya Days, racism is just as likely a supposition as any for the overblown animus.


Alex is correct in that racism has gone undercover, and that's a good thing. But undercover does not mean gone. Not by a long, long, long, long shot. And yes, like it or not, you're going to have to go Out Of Your Way to make arguments that are reasonable and logical if you don't want it generally ASSUMED that your beef with the black president is the color of his N.word skin.

[scaeagles]

You can't prove racism or a lack there of in the opposition. Agreed.

It is true that there were not the huge protests over spending in the Bush years, though there damn well should have been. And while 500 billion is no small deficit in the Bush years, this year's projection of 1.6 trillion is significantly larger. And the perspective of the economy adds a lot to it, as you point out ISM. However, to protest spending now in the lack of protests earlier does not mean those that are protesting now are stupid.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

However, to protest spending now in the lack of protests earlier does not mean those that are protesting now are stupid.

To me it might mean they are hypocritical. But I rather think they are just acting out of fear, now that the recovery from the economic collapse seems not to be including any non-rich Americans.

But yeah, I think they're also mostly stupid. Not a peep of mass protest or guns wielded at presidential events while tax cuts to the wealthy and a war of imperialism sold by pure lie ballooned the deficit in the first place. And yet now that someone wants to use it to bring jobs, energy independence, health care and environmental sustainability, folks are up-in-arms.

I don't think these bozos who couldn't articulate a decent idea are really objecting the finer points of the policy proposals aimed at restoring economic and moral vitality to America. I think they're angry sheep.

Such people have always acted against their self-interest. They don't want a better world for everyone, so they can enjoy a better world as part of it. Instead, they dream of being among the ultra-few who enjoy the better world through wealth and power, and so work to protect the privileges of that segment while they hope and pray (but do little else) to join their ranks.

Such people are deluded, plain and simple - - and act on that delusion against their own self interest. Definition of stupidity, if you ask me.