I’m surprised that this post seems to have been completely ignored. There has been subtle (the uproar of the shoe photograph) and not so subtle (“you lie”, the ridiculous finger waving) evidence of this widely reported, but it always fades away. No-one will address this.
A lot of people are absolutely enraged the White House is being so sullied, but no-one will admit it. “I take him at his word” got more negative press.
Really? So “Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick fil A” didn’t happen? Where are the stormtroopers in riot gear pepper spraying the protesters?
I’ve said all along that it’s not just an issue of racism. Yes, obviously racism is there but this isn’t really about racism.
Conservatives hate Obama. Conservatives hated Clinton and Carter also. They hated McGovern and Mondale and Gore and Kerry. They will whip up hatred for whichever person stand between them and power. In Obama’s case, they use race as an easy weapon to stir up. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, they’d hate her because she’s a woman. If John Edwards had been elected, they’d hate him for cheating on his wife. Regardless of who it was, they’d find a reason to hate them.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, and liberals are so tolerant. Why, there isn’t a single post on this board denouncing all conservatives as evil, stupid, ignorant, racists just because of a difference in political opinion.
Oh wait…there are posts like that in this very thread.
The wealthy want to keep their money, and the poor want them to pay more taxes.
What is so difficult to understand?
Maybe. But I’ve never seen any liberal saying they hate Mitt Romney because he was born in Kenya and he’s a Muslim. When people start inventing things just so they’ll have a reason to hate somebody, it’s a whole different level of hate.
With respect, you are naive and wrong. No recent president has been treated with such flagrant disrespect as Mr. Obama by his fellow politicians.
The main point I was trying to make is that aside from political differences the people that constitute the Republican party base these days are not the same type of people I associated with when I registered as a Republican in late 70’s.
I’m talking about character. While there are pockets of sanity there are large swaths of Republican voters these days who are fundamentally racist regardless of the fine points of their political beliefs. The Republicans on both the national and state levels over the past decade have distinguished themselves as spoilers about cooperating with virtually any type of progressive legislation, and are unashamedly willing go to almost any lengths to protect the interests of the 1%.
The level of hubris necessary for the legislation calling for the harassing penetrative sexual exams for women wishing to have abortions beggars the imagination. The hee-haw war against science. Creationism taught as science in classrooms. These are things Republicans are comfortable with.
It’s plutocrats pulling the strings of frightened, raging yahoos and the politicians that service them. It’s a sad mess.
Democrats have their own issues but the GOP *really *needs to reform.
You mean stuff like this?
I dunno. Senator Helms said (in a newspaper interview) that President Clinton was unfit to be Commander-in Chief and “Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” That’s pretty flagrant disrespect.
Terms like hateful and ignorant are somewhat subjective but I’ll assume Shayna would be willing to state under oath that she believes them to be factually true. That’s certainly nothing there that’s as clearly and objectively false as the claim that Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim, which is what I wrote.
So basically the problem with the Republicans is that they are like the New Deal-era Democratic party.
Where did that come from?
Were the New Deal Democrats:
“spoilers about cooperating with virtually any type of progressive legislation”?
“unashamedly willing go to almost any lengths to protect the interests of the 1%”?
“calling for the harassing penetrative sexual exams for women wishing to have abortions”?
Supporting a “hee-haw war against science”?
“plutocrats pulling the strings of frightened, raging yahoos”?
Seriously? You’re saying these are descriptions of the New Dealers? WTF?
Anti-abortion, racist, anti-science, plutocratic, definitely.
As for serving the 1%, it may not have been their intention, but they sure liked to put the little guy out of business to serve the interests of large corporations. They found the market “unruly” and thought competition was one of the causes of the Depression. So the very first thing they did when taking power in 1933 was cartelize industry.
Um, read it again. The part about all Republicans being racists. That is clearly and objectively false. Also bigoted and willfully ignorant.
Then there’s the religious nutjob crack. Also false. I’m not hateful, ignorant, or anti-democracy either. But don’t let facts stand in the way of conservative bashing.
Abortion wasn’t even on the table then. And that example and most others are extreme ones.
I’m with Bricker. The racists are winning.
Well, racism, anti-abortion sentiment, liberal gun laws, contempt for feminism and “progress” in general, property rights fanaticism, opposition to the principles if not the practice of the welfare state, and tax cuts for [del]everybody[/del]–oops, tax cuts for “me”, tax raises for “bums”–these are popular positions. Doesn’t matter if you or I disagree with all of them. There is a firm, uncompromising plurality of the country that are committed to them, and their power is growing.
Meh. They have grandkids. These are the ones who’ll say they got more conservative when they got older. “Oh, yeah, when I was young, I experimented with not being a gubmint-hatin’ xenophobe, but now I find myself reverting to what I was taught: God gave me the right to guns, Jesus gave me capitalism, the world doesn’t owe anything a life, and regulation is just against freedom! And my gay spouse thinks the same way!”
Then if the L gets too annoying, the two bigs can do a unity government. Or parts of R & D splinter off to form the “anti-L” faction. Not that big a problem, really.
Nah, what’s really freaky is a situation like in Greece’s last election, where the two big center-ish parties were both split by the same unpopular stance, and five parties became seven, and nobody could get a coalition going for a while. (Have they yet?) Exacerbated this time by the fact that their constitution gives extra seats to the plurality-winning party, which in this case was on the losing side of the unpopular issue.
I’m still in favor of multi-party systems, by the way. Fractious uncertainty is not so much worse than unassailable cocksure commitment to dubious ideas.
Maybe they’re just whining. (How I first read that. :))
What would be left of the base then?
Really? Really?
Is this some kind of fear of Chinese? Is that where it comes from?
Or do you actually think that government properly should only govern part of the country? No, of course, that’s it. You want government to be in some kind of power-sharing detente with the church and the family, so its jurisdiction stops at various arbitrary points within its territory. Churches can offer sanctuary (and defy the law). Families will be self-governed (however vile). You must think people like me are totalitarians. Well, maybe we are.
And that’s it. It’s all about straight-up bitchy powerlust. They want the power, and they’ll fight like Sun Tzu to get it.
Sweet screaming monkeys! You contend that Roosevelt was not the anti-plutocrat of his day, hated as a Bolshevik traitor to his elite class? And you can hardly show the New Deal as anti-science in the way the present GOP is, running and hiding from anyone who would burst their little bubbles of false hope and superstition!