Especially if it’s finally going to do something about the Dwarf Problem!
32 is lower than 25?
Oh, come on. When has a little thing like reality ever troubled any of his “facts”?
Using approval ratings alone, without taking into account disapproval ratings, doesn’t really tell you much, as low approval ratings could mean that people are neutral towards someone, or that they don’t even know who they are. This is likely the case with Reid. To really show where they stand a ratio of approval to disapproval tells the story more accurately. Note that I was also wrong with my 25% approval for Bush. His final outgoing rating was actually lower, at 22%, which is half of what Carter had when he left. Ouch. He actually had an approval rating of just 20% at one point, but I don’t have disapproval values for that poll, so I’m not going to use it.
Approval/Disapproval
Palin - 1:1.12
Pelosi - 1:1.59
Reid - 1:2.07
Obama - 1:0.59
Biden - 1:0.79
Bush at his lowest - 1:3.32
Looks like Pelosi and Reid have a lot of work to do in order for the facts to catch up to Shodan’s reality.
Which Hitler really did, and which is really odd, considering how the Ring Cycle ends.
Hope no one minds if I don’t know which side to take in my own thread.
Anyone hear the story about the guy with a gun outside Obama’s 8/11 townhall meeting?
He had a gun strapped to his leg and was waving a sign about ‘watering the tree of Liberty’- a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s revolutionary war quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Considering the context, looks like a threat to shoot the president to me. Or am I just paranoid?
I saw him interviewed (I forget on what network, but John Stewart showed a clip on TDS last night): Asked, “Was the gun loaded?” he replied, “Who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm?”
Well, I’m sure the Secret Service wouldn’t have let him into the hall where Obama was speaking, and it would be too big a job to search each and every person who gathers outside. Still . . . :eek:
This might be of interest.
Well, it’s good to read that it’s not quite as bad as it was in the '90s . . . kinda . . .
Does that make them illegal immigrants? More specifically- illegals?
I wish news outlets would quit treating something like this as newsworthy. The reductio ad Hitlerium is the low hanging fruit that’ll always get grabbed no matter who is in controversy.
And, the thing I dislike most about the Teabaggers is their spamming of the culture. Thanks for the nonsense, guys :mad:
No, because they’re not very smart and haven’t figured out that they have to publicly renounce their citizenship in order to lose it.
That’s not a news outlet- it’s the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Klanwatch, which monitors right-wing extremist activity.
Interestingly, there finally appears to be a sort of silver lining to 9/11- we’re now much better prepared to prevent domestic terrorist attacks like another Oklahoma City bombing. I scarcely need to mention that if the militia movement is growing again, another large scale terrorist attack can’t be far behind. :mad: 
Once in the '90s, at a party hosted by a local Libertarian, a guy who claimed some association (I’m not clear on how close) with the militia movement told me there was proof the FBI had perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing as a “false flag” operation, to generate a pretext for a crackdown on dissidents. That’s their worldview.
Yep, pretty much. Most of them think the Oklahoma City bombing was staged by the government to demonize the militia movement.
Of course, under Clinton the problem exploded because of the poor (okay, horrible) handling of the Ruby Creek and Waco incidents. Hopefully Obama won’t have to deal with anything like that, which will help minimize the spread of the crazy.
Great. Now we have gubernatorial candidates making comments about issuing tags to hunt Obama like an animal. Have you seen this article?
Can’t say I appreciate the way these right-wingers keep suggesting they ought to dismantle the democratic process rather than play ball. Now they’re suggesting shooting Obama and dehumanizing him as well.
Fucking fascists :mad:
This is a singularly naive and stunningly ridiculous analysis. It is completely detached from reality.
From the beginning, Obama has been consistent in his attempts to moderate his programs to gain broader support. The stimulus was loaded with tax cuts on the advice of Republicans, who then went on to still reject the bill (only three exceptions in the Senate, and one of them is a Demmie now). The climate change legislation is based on market-based principles, which is to say, it is quite possibly the least intrusive bit of regulation that could possibly be done. This particular bill isn’t great because of its various exemptions and giveaways, but these special interest giveaways wouldn’t have been necessary to pass the bill if the House Republicans weren’t being so obstructionist (only eight exceptions).
And finally, the Republican position on health care for years has been the future costs of Medicare. Obama is finally offering a plan to try to reduce those costs, and now we’re hearing talk about “death panels”, “death books”, and other such fabricated nonsense which is purposefully designed to scare folks with lies. A large segment of people seem to want to “keep the government out of Medicare”, not realizing that Medicare is a government program. And the people generally don’t do any better than random chance in guessing what a “public option” for health insurance actually means. So in this case, we have a Democratic President who is finally attempted to reduce costs, and the Republicans attack him from the other side, claiming his wants to “pull the plug on grandma”. This is the most unprincipled, hypocritical opposition possible.
And you accuse Obama of being immoderate? You haven’t been paying even the slightest attention.
The Pubbies are following the same strategy now as they did against Clinton, which is obstruct everything, regardless of whether it’s something they previously wanted to do, and hope to gain seats at the midterm elections after accusing the president of failure. Obama’s actual moderation is of absolutely no consequence. They are blocking all major programs because of simple game theory: they see no benefit in agreeing with any policy which might turn out to be successful, because they wouldn’t receive credit for that success. This is actually a clever, if extremely selfish, strategy. But it has absolutely, utterly nothing to do with how “immoderate” Obama is. It’s just politics, nothing more or less.
Let me repeat some quotes from the article mentioned in the op to be clear that I’m not fooling around
Suggesting that hunters consider ‘Obama tags’ sure does sound like elites (gubernatorial candidates) throwing in with and ‘deputizing’ thugs (people who’d like to shoot Obama). Limbaugh harasses liberals, town hall meetings are disrupted, though I don’t know about a lot of physical harassment of workers to be fair.
Not violence against Hispanics, violence against animals. Caveat- I don’t believe all hunting boils down to litmus-positive cruelty. There is a primal element to it that I don’t think can be denied. However, in the context of ‘Obama tags’, hunting does take on the tenor of training for goon squads. At least in 2009 Idaho. Nice fucking job, Rammell!
Ok, forget the right-wing goon violence for a minute. There’s more than one way to be a fascist.
Why is there going to be no public option? Not because the Dems control the House, Senate and the White house and can push through whatever legislation they want. No, those kind of silly representative details don’t carry any weight in a government that is owned by corporations. The corporations don’t want a public option, they write the paychecks that get officials elected, and so regardless of what people thought they were voting for the corporations will decide for us that there will be no public option. Want government representation? Move to France :mad:
Disruption of the democratic process? We’re watching it happen as I type. Corporate fascism, no?
The Young Turk doesn’t use the ‘f’ word, but says everything but in his analysis:
Ah, so now it’s those evil corporations. :rolleyes:
There won’t be a public option because the Democrats don’t want it. They’re in the majority, you know, and can do anything they want.
I don’t think we are at a big risk of fascism right now. I think we are at risk of right wing terrorism and right wing violence, but not a fascist takeover of the US government.
For one thing, fascist government seem to need a huge pool of young, angry men who have military training. The fascists in Italy and Germany had unemployed soldiers from WW1 who would do their bidding. In the US we do not have that. In fascist Italy of the 20s and 30s, you had young men with military training. In the US most of the wingnuts who endorse assassination and terrorism are over 60 and probably have no military training whatsoever.
The US has survived far closer calls with fascism. After WW1 the KKK reformed and had almost 4 million members at its peak. It also controlled several state government. The KKK was a fascist organization. The business plot of 1934 was a close call with a military coup and involved hundreds of thousands of (again) pissed off, unemployed ex-soldiers. But we survived both of those events.
There is a theory in political science, I forget who authored it, that democracy tends to take hold when per capita income rises to or above $2500-5000. The authors looked at nations making the transition and found that those below that usually failed when converting from authoritarianism to democracy, those in that range had a 50/50 shot and those with higher incomes tended to make it. I’m not sure how that applies to oil rich countries in the mideast though. But anyway, in the US we have a middle class and you need a functioning state and personal freedom in order to grow the economy. So a fascist takeover would be resisted.
Plus I don’t think we have the trauma of fascist countries. Most countries that converted to fascism did so because of the traumas of ww1 and the depression. However our traumas are nowhere near that. We’d had a horrible recession and a two minor wars preceded by a terror attack. Unemployment is going to top off at 10-11%, but during the depression it was 25%.
And evenso, trauma also pushes nations to the left. The communists in Germany did just as good at the polls as the fascists until 1933. The Russians became communist due to the trauma of WW1 while the Germans and Italians became fascist. The trauma of the great depression led to the Business plot (which was an attempt at a military coup in 1934) but it also led to FDR’s new deal.
Overall, I’m not too worried about a fascist takeover. I’m worried about right wing terrorism and right wing violence, but not a military takeover from these people.