financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Dp.
Obama General Discussion... (Part 2)
- Thread starter zooropop40
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
It's all about policy, not race.
Um... I'm waiting for the part where it's about race.
The British newspaper journalist who wrote in 2004 "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"... what a racist.
And the movie "Death of a President"... what a bunch of racists that produced it and went to go see it.
Why can't crazy people just be crazy people, BVS?
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
The British newspaper journalist who wrote in 2004 "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"... what a racist.
Charlie Brooker is a satirical columnist. I understand the point you are making, but we are not talking a London Times, or even a Guardian editorial here.
Oh, and:-
Charlie Brooker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Show me where your neocon idols have apologised for calling for mass death (I believe the PC expression is 'regime change') in the Mid East. Show me where your neocon idols have apologised for the mass death they have already caused in the Mid East. Where is Glen Beck's apology for being a big necon shill for the conquest of a sovereign nation, the destruction of its infrastructure and the murder of tens of thousands of its citizens?
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Look at all these racists... By the way, BVS, notice the typoed "there" in the first sign. I know you'll appreciate that. 
Dozens more here: Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years � zomblog
By the way, BVS, notice the typoed "there" in the first sign. I know you'll appreciate that.
Dozens more here: Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years � zomblog
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Are these slogans legal under the US Constitution?
Bush authorised stuff that wasn't legal under the US Constitution. A point that seems to have escaped your attention.
Bush authorised stuff that wasn't legal under the US Constitution. A point that seems to have escaped your attention.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
BTW, 28612, do you seriously believe the first guy is a liberal far left queer lovin' Democrat? 'Cos he looks more like a very obvious plant to me.
The punk and the black lady look like they mean it, but it is known and well documented that RW political operatives in the payroll of the Bush administration infiltrated anti-war (as in, you know, 'far left') rallies to make them look like they were extremists.
The punk and the black lady look like they mean it, but it is known and well documented that RW political operatives in the payroll of the Bush administration infiltrated anti-war (as in, you know, 'far left') rallies to make them look like they were extremists.
Look at all these racists...
You know, when I see an anti-globalization protest, despite my agreement with a lot of the basic ideas of the movement, I am also able to, without any problem whatever, state that there is a portion of the people who subscribe to that view who are probably violent, certainly thugs, and maybe even prone to domestic terrorism on any given day.
Instead of recognizing that there is a very obvious racist segment to the Obama haters, you post inane, stupid photos of Bush protesters, which are OBVIOUSLY (at least to every sentient being) not motivated by race at all. It's silly, and it makes me doubt that you spend much time thinking critically about the issue at hand.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Um... I'm waiting for the part where it's about race.
The British newspaper journalist who wrote in 2004 "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"... what a racist.
And the movie "Death of a President"... what a bunch of racists that produced it and went to go see it.
Why can't crazy people just be crazy people, BVS?
Well you obviously missed my tongue in cheek point.
I keep hearing "it's about policy", when you hate enough to even "joke" about killing it's not "about policy".
Sorry I didn't make that obvious enough.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Look at all these racists...
I've stated over and over that there are quacks on all sides.
But in order for you to be taken seriously, you need to understand the difference between these protestors and the tea party protestors.
*Not that I'm defending their words, but anti-war and anti-globalist protestors are protesting much much bigger ideals than domestic policy and money.
The difference is, I distance myself from these people. You and the "mainstream" hardcore right have not...
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I do distance myself from racists when I come to the conclusion that they are such. What there is no need to distance myself from are the overwhelming majority of honest protesters who so many here and in the media want to avoid by simply dismissing as racists when they are not.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
That has nothing to do with this and you know it. That's an excuse to advocate killing the president?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
And that's the problem that a lot of young conservatives aren't seeing. I don't think they themselves are nearly as racists as the generations before them, but I think it's still so ingrained that they can't really recognize it.
The Hannity's know they can't really speak out because they'll lose some listeners. Rush and Beck ARE part of the problem. The older generations grew up in segregation, pretend it was no big deal and talk about the 50's like they were the golden era. Even McCain was trying to tread the thin line when he didn't tell his town halls to use some decorum, because he knew.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
my very honest suspicion is that, firstly, since the tea baggers aren't large in number -- they're dwarfed by your average anti-war protest -- that they are small enough and motivated enough to be driven by something other than rational policy disputes. it really only is the fringe of the right who seem to think Obama is something other than a moderate liberal, and you'll forgive me for associating the fringe of the right with murderous racism, but history quite bears out those suspicions. i can see clear and honest uncertainty in the polls with many of Obama's proposals -- that's fine and fair and part of living in a democracy. i think you'll find that nearly everyone who has disagreed with INDY on the health care thread will agree that, yes, he does have clear points of *policy* disagreement and he can express his opinions with clarity and conviction and consistency.
i don't see a shred of the same when i browse through the comments section on Michelle Malkin, or when i hear Glenn Beck call Obama a racist (or when he mentions "white culture," for example).
however, i will absolutely make it a priority to try to go to the next tea bagger protest in DC and i will try and give an honest assessment of the crowd.
in other news, big BGLT march on DC on October 11th. you're all invited!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Well to say "overwhelming majority" I think is extremely naive at the very least, but because you've had a history of displaying the lack of recognizing it I understand your stance.
But as a party, you are all doing yourself a disservice by allowing Rush to go on without being called out, by allowing Beck to go on without being called out, to allow these protestors to go on without being called out. If they were truly a minority then you should have no problem asking them to put down their signs or not to speak in order to further your movement, but from what I've seen so far they have been allowed to speak(even saw a members of state governments go off on racist asides during the first tea party) and their signs have been cheered or at the very least given fellow tea partiers a laugh(and they weren't laughing at they were laughing with). Now, I do find that the tea party protestors are a minority of the Republican party, but the racists are not a minority of the tea parties.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Really? You're really pointing to a comments section of a political website to make a point? Do you ever read the comments on Daily Kos or Huffington Post or others? Lots of policy debate and rationale coming from there.
Regarding the Beck thing, that was a dumb statement and he shouldn't have said, and as far as I know, he said it once. Do you even watch his show? It is nothing but attacking Obama based on policies.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Fantastic column on race I read the other day.
S. E. Cupp : Generational Racism is Old and Tired - Townhall.com
Generational racism is old and tired
by S.E. Cupp
Jimmy Carter is 85 years old. Dave Letterman is 62, Nancy Pelosi is 69, Maureen Dowd is 57, and Al Sharpton is 54.
These are the people – and theirs is the generation – who are teaching America’s youth how to be racist in 2009. They are very good instructors.
Whether it’s Carter’s insistence that “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition to Obama is racist, or it’s Dowd declaring “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president,” or it’s Pelosi’s feigned crocodile tears over the “language being used,” or it’s Letterman baiting the president into a race discussion, each one of them is telling my generation and the ones that follow that race is merely a political weapon of expedience, to be used haphazardly and crudely simply to get what you want. As long as there is a convenient victim to prop up, some kind of imagined target of the hood-donning right, it doesn’t matter if the racism is real or perceived. It just matters that it’s effective.
And it used to be. Race was always a hot-button topic in this country, and it still is. But the sharpness of that threat has been dulled a bit. Thanks to the inarguable success of the civil rights movement, my generation, the 20- and 30-somethings, didn’t grow up encumbered by the aggressive identity politics of the 60s and 70s, or the kind of rhetoric that made white people scared to talk about race, and men scared to talk about gender.
So my generation isn’t so easily intimidated by discussions of race, because we were raised in a climate that was much less hostile toward them. And that should be a good thing, the unmitigated result of equality and justice, the mark of progress. We talk about race in blunt and unthreatening terms when race is an issue. And when it isn’t an issue, well, we don’t pretend it is.
Not so with the aging liberal cognoscenti, which, as of late, would be better labeled the “ignoscenti” for some of the baffling oddities they’ve uttered. For them, race is simply everywhere. It is hanging from the trees and falling from the sky. It’s in the air, in the water, it is both viscous and fluid, and permeates every willing orifice of every fertile sponge. The Sharptons and Dowds and Carters and Lettermans have decided that they’re not quite ready to live in the post-race America they effervesced about so dreamily and giddily during the presidential campaign. And why not? Because, as it turns out, living in a “racist America” is much more useful to them.
Instead of discussing Obama’s plans for health care reform, immigration, foreign policy or the economy on their merits (or demerits, as it were), graying liberal finger-pointers have discovered it’s so much easier to simply play the race card. So any opposition to the president’s initiatives – which are frightening enough without projecting an imagined veil of racism onto them – quickly elicits throaty screams of “racism!” with the hope that all their enemies will scurry back into their caves, shamed into hiding by the tenured, holier-than-thou professors of race politics who are still clinging to their 1965 textbooks.
And some of them do scurry back into their caves, chastised and ridiculed. But I'd bet every time they weren't from my generation. We don’t take the scurrilous accusations levied at a Joe Wilson, or a tea partier or a town hall seriously – because they’re not. They are quite simply preposterous. And so, as we are wont to do, we point and laugh instead, throwing our heads back in bemusement at the old establishment fogies who’ve yet to enter the 21st century.
Race-baiting is so five minutes ago, we tell them – but it falls on deaf (or at least hearing-impaired) ears. No matter, they’re hoping that the old-school racializing of everything and anything (did Joe Wilson say “boy,” like Maureen Dowd said?! Gasp!) will come back into fashion. It won’t. Because my generation is the first that isn’t willing to go gentle into that good night, intimidated and threatened by Al Sharpton’s erratic dry-heaving or Maureen Dowd’s shrill lectures, or Jimmy Carter’s see-through sanctimony. I know they really, really want us to take them and their lunatic accusations of racism seriously, but we're rebelling instead. Better get used to it. It's all just part of the aging process.
The unfortunate thing is that racism is real. Racism does still exist here in America. I've seen it with my own eyes. And every time Nancy Pelosi or David Paterson or David Letterman pretends it lives somewhere it doesn’t, it makes it all the more difficult to find out where it actually does. So thanks, baby boomer liberals, for coming so far and trying to bring us with you. I think we’ll get off this train though. No one my age wants to go where you’re going: Back in time.
S. E. Cupp : Generational Racism is Old and Tired - Townhall.com
Generational racism is old and tired
by S.E. Cupp
Jimmy Carter is 85 years old. Dave Letterman is 62, Nancy Pelosi is 69, Maureen Dowd is 57, and Al Sharpton is 54.
These are the people – and theirs is the generation – who are teaching America’s youth how to be racist in 2009. They are very good instructors.
Whether it’s Carter’s insistence that “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition to Obama is racist, or it’s Dowd declaring “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president,” or it’s Pelosi’s feigned crocodile tears over the “language being used,” or it’s Letterman baiting the president into a race discussion, each one of them is telling my generation and the ones that follow that race is merely a political weapon of expedience, to be used haphazardly and crudely simply to get what you want. As long as there is a convenient victim to prop up, some kind of imagined target of the hood-donning right, it doesn’t matter if the racism is real or perceived. It just matters that it’s effective.
And it used to be. Race was always a hot-button topic in this country, and it still is. But the sharpness of that threat has been dulled a bit. Thanks to the inarguable success of the civil rights movement, my generation, the 20- and 30-somethings, didn’t grow up encumbered by the aggressive identity politics of the 60s and 70s, or the kind of rhetoric that made white people scared to talk about race, and men scared to talk about gender.
So my generation isn’t so easily intimidated by discussions of race, because we were raised in a climate that was much less hostile toward them. And that should be a good thing, the unmitigated result of equality and justice, the mark of progress. We talk about race in blunt and unthreatening terms when race is an issue. And when it isn’t an issue, well, we don’t pretend it is.
Not so with the aging liberal cognoscenti, which, as of late, would be better labeled the “ignoscenti” for some of the baffling oddities they’ve uttered. For them, race is simply everywhere. It is hanging from the trees and falling from the sky. It’s in the air, in the water, it is both viscous and fluid, and permeates every willing orifice of every fertile sponge. The Sharptons and Dowds and Carters and Lettermans have decided that they’re not quite ready to live in the post-race America they effervesced about so dreamily and giddily during the presidential campaign. And why not? Because, as it turns out, living in a “racist America” is much more useful to them.
Instead of discussing Obama’s plans for health care reform, immigration, foreign policy or the economy on their merits (or demerits, as it were), graying liberal finger-pointers have discovered it’s so much easier to simply play the race card. So any opposition to the president’s initiatives – which are frightening enough without projecting an imagined veil of racism onto them – quickly elicits throaty screams of “racism!” with the hope that all their enemies will scurry back into their caves, shamed into hiding by the tenured, holier-than-thou professors of race politics who are still clinging to their 1965 textbooks.
And some of them do scurry back into their caves, chastised and ridiculed. But I'd bet every time they weren't from my generation. We don’t take the scurrilous accusations levied at a Joe Wilson, or a tea partier or a town hall seriously – because they’re not. They are quite simply preposterous. And so, as we are wont to do, we point and laugh instead, throwing our heads back in bemusement at the old establishment fogies who’ve yet to enter the 21st century.
Race-baiting is so five minutes ago, we tell them – but it falls on deaf (or at least hearing-impaired) ears. No matter, they’re hoping that the old-school racializing of everything and anything (did Joe Wilson say “boy,” like Maureen Dowd said?! Gasp!) will come back into fashion. It won’t. Because my generation is the first that isn’t willing to go gentle into that good night, intimidated and threatened by Al Sharpton’s erratic dry-heaving or Maureen Dowd’s shrill lectures, or Jimmy Carter’s see-through sanctimony. I know they really, really want us to take them and their lunatic accusations of racism seriously, but we're rebelling instead. Better get used to it. It's all just part of the aging process.
The unfortunate thing is that racism is real. Racism does still exist here in America. I've seen it with my own eyes. And every time Nancy Pelosi or David Paterson or David Letterman pretends it lives somewhere it doesn’t, it makes it all the more difficult to find out where it actually does. So thanks, baby boomer liberals, for coming so far and trying to bring us with you. I think we’ll get off this train though. No one my age wants to go where you’re going: Back in time.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Really? You're really pointing to a comments section of a political website to make a point? Do you ever read the comments on Daily Kos or Huffington Post or others? Lots of policy debate and rationale coming from there.
really? did you really just do that? did you criticize me for talking about posters on a certain website after posting a bunch of individual signs cherry picked from hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters? HILARIOUS.
anyway, the point i was making is that i would take the comments -- many of whom proudly announce their attendance at said rallies -- not to be at all representative of broad conservative thought, but representative of certain strands of conservative thought that seems to find an outlet on these far right websites as well as at the tea parties.
i don't believe that many people who object to Obama's policies on rational grounds are going to be so motivated to march and wave signs comparing him to Hitler.
yes, i've seen Beck's show, and i think he's little more than a snake oil salesman, a huckster in the 19th century sense of the word.
he takes Obama's policies and spins them as threats to a nostalgic vision of the USA that never actually existed.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
yes, as ever, charges of racism and "identity politics" are the *real* enemies here. conservatives don't see color!
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Wrong on both parts. He said it more than once and the majority of his attacks on radio are not about policy.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
How do you consider this a "fantastic column on race", it had almost nothing to do with race. It said nothing new. It's the same old conservative argument, "see they're race baiting".
When will one of you be brave enough to honestly discuss race?
You said you were ready, but then you still bring this shit to the table?!
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Good Lord, BVS, what the hell do you want to "discuss?" What is it that you see and know that you insist I'm denying? I struggle to see the point in having a discussion with someone who is going to assume that objection to Obama is more likely than not subconsciously rooted in xenophobia, and someone who holds a "kill Obama" sign is a racist conservative while someone who holds a "kill Bush" sign is just an extremist nut and should not be taken seriously and, most likely, is probably just a plant by the right.
So come on. Let's discuss. What do you want?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Well, I can tell any real discussion is going to be difficult since you insist on not listening to me and keep distoring my view.
First of all stop equating 'objection' to 'protestors' I think Carter, Irvine, myself and most others KNOW the difference between the educated conservative that can argue based solely on policy from those at a rally. In fact if we would just eliminate the tea parties from the equation this would more than likely not even be a topic of discussion.
Let's discuss why is it when Obama was running not even the canidate did we hear from you, Rush, and others that Obama will only win because "he's a good looking black man"? You were absolutely the first people to play any race card. Why? Yet you accused everyone else of playing it.
Why if it's about spending and czars is "communism", "birth certificate", "Africa" showing up all over the place? Why are rants about 'not being able to send back illegal aliens' being spouted out by elected officials at a rally that's suppose to be about "spending"? Why are ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS being caught sending racist emails out about Obama? Why is the "christian right" not standing up and condemning Rush's racism?
This has all become acceptable to you, why is that?
Don't even answer the issue about why Bush's spending or Reagan's czars were never an issue, we know that answer.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
this is a good point.
it's amazing how Obama (and Michelle) is too cerebral and effete and intellectual, and yet at the same time he's clearly an affirmative action baby and only got to where he is because white people felt guilty.
i also don't see how anyone "plays the race card." race is a fact of life, and simply acknowledging that race exists and does play a role in people's lives seems to me to be reality.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
What is your problem with the protesters? I think I've yet to understand it. Do you think they're all motivated by race and are just a bunch of ignorant rednecks?
Let me have Irvine answer that.
The only such talk that I remember was the assumption that Obama would get a significant number of votes just because he's black or just because he's young and cool or just because he supposedly can give a good speech, or any other asinine reason. What is wrong with objecting to that? What is wrong with not being comfortable with the idea of people voting for him just because he's black?
I would probably debate your definition of "all over the place." Is talk about Africa really that widespread, or does the media just find its occurrences and run with them? Look at the leaders of the Republican party. Do you see Huckabee talking about Africa? No. Do you see Romney talking about Africa? No. Palin? Gingrich? Crist? Pawlenty? No. And I've heard on multiple occasions these very people denouncing the birthers. But why focus on that when we can make Orly Taitz the head of the GOP? I understand, it is difficult...
I don't know what you're referring to. If it is a racial remark, then shame on that person. But elected officials from both parties have made racial remarks before. What did candidate-Biden say about walking into a 7-11?
Perhaps because Rush isn't a racist.
What?
Bluer White
New Yorker
2861, why even get drawn into this 'debate' ?
I thought journalist Roger Simon...of all people...had a good thought on MSNBC last week.
Simon said that some Obama people believe that if the race issue "is worth stating, then it's worth overstating."
That's what is going on here.
I thought journalist Roger Simon...of all people...had a good thought on MSNBC last week.
Simon said that some Obama people believe that if the race issue "is worth stating, then it's worth overstating."
That's what is going on here.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Keep in mind I've been to the Apr 15 and to the latest tea party, they are a bunch of angry people who can't explain what they are angry about, and yes the majority of them have race issues. They celebrate ignorance.
But you don't believe what Irvine said there, for you accuse people all the time
What's wrong with it, is that YOU were the one that made the assumption that he would win only because he was black. That was you! How do you not get this? YOU were the very first person in FYM to bring up race.
WILL YOU PLEASE START LISTENING TO ME!!! Otherwise this is just useless. I have stated that I am talking about the tea parties and not the Republican party in general.
I don't see Romney saying much of anything significant, or any of the leaders for that matter. If they were saying something significant the tea parties would be obsolete.
It saddens me that you think comissioning and playing a song like "Barack the Magic Negro" isn't racist, your party has a long way to go.
It's not difficult the party as a whole are hypocrites on this one. You didn't speak out on Bush's spending. And no one said anything about Reagan's czars.What?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Bluer White
New Yorker
2861, see what I mean? 
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
