The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

Even I'll say he has his crazy side.

 

I'm always of the sort that thinks its interesting to compare the crazy side of each side of the aisle though. The crazy side of the left...damn dirty hippies. The crazy side of the right...thinks that carrying an AK-47 knockoff to a protest/bar is a good idea. Unless you lump in the really violent anarchists with the left (why would you?)...that always interested me.

 

Uh, I would rope them into the left wing as much as you want to rope in these people on the right. These people are a major part of the biggest parts of the Democratic platform, such as the guys who think it is a good idea to fire bomb car dealerships to protect the environment. I don't see that as any different than lumping the Klansmen in with the right because they are religious. By and large these people vote Democratic, and are on the Democratic side of policy. The way you guys are defining the right wing, that makes these guys a legitmate part of the left wing.

[GoSox05]

Uh, I would rope them into the left wing as much as you want to rope in these people on the right. These people are a major part of the biggest parts of the Democratic platform, such as the guys who think it is a good idea to fire bomb car dealerships to protect the environment. I don't see that as any different than lumping the Klansmen in with the right because they are religious. By and large these people vote Democratic, and are on the Democratic side of policy. The way you guys are defining the right wing, that makes these guys a legitmate part of the left wing.

 

 

I don't know anyone from the far left that votes democratic. Anarchists or people from the A.L.F or E.L.F would never vote for the democratic party.

 

Thats why I find it funny when people call Obama a socialist or a communist. The socialists and communists I know can't stand Obama.

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't know anyone from the far left that votes democratic. Anarchists or people from the A.L.F or E.L.F would never vote for the democratic party.

 

Thats why I find it funny when people call Obama a socialist or a communist. The socialists and communists I know can't stand Obama.

 

How about the labor union fringes that finance the Dems, yet incite violence at rallies?

[BigSqwert]

I don't know anyone from the far left that votes democratic. Anarchists or people from the A.L.F or E.L.F would never vote for the democratic party.

 

Thats why I find it funny when people call Obama a socialist or a communist. The socialists and communists I know can't stand Obama.

 

Agreed. Pretty much every anarchist, socialist, and communist I know wouldn't vote Democratic.

[GoSox05]

How about the labor union fringes that finance the Dems, yet incite violence at rallies?

 

 

Labor unions support the democratic party, but what else are they gonna do? The other major party doesn't think they should be allowed to exist.

 

 

I don't know of too many cases of extreme violence by labor unions. There are cases, but they are few.

 

Now violence against labor unions has been much worse in the history of this country.

[Balta1701]

Uh, I would rope them into the left wing as much as you want to rope in these people on the right. These people are a major part of the biggest parts of the Democratic platform, such as the guys who think it is a good idea to fire bomb car dealerships to protect the environment. I don't see that as any different than lumping the Klansmen in with the right because they are religious. By and large these people vote Democratic, and are on the Democratic side of policy. The way you guys are defining the right wing, that makes these guys a legitmate part of the left wing.

Forgot the ELF ones. That's a good point.

[bmags]

How about the labor union fringes that finance the Dems, yet incite violence at rallies?

 

lol. Yeah. so in STL 3 guys get into a scuffle so the SEIU as a whole is asking their members to incite violence against the tea baggers. Everything is =. Black and white. Extreme right=extreme left.

 

But it sure as hell seems like the extreme right gets a hell of a lot more airtime in their party and a hell of a lot more catering to, and seem to have a hell of a lot more power.

[Balta1701]

Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck's life.

[BigSqwert]

How long will I have to wait until Drudge puts this as his top headline in all caps?

[Rex Kickass]

Both sides of the aisle have their bat-s*** crazies. But the difference in the past decade, is two-fold. One, the crazies on the right (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Buchanan) have a much bigger, much more fervent following than those on the left (Olbermann, not sure who else really qualifies). And two, the ones on the right are driven much more by anger and hate than the ones on the left. Its sad and desperate, and makes me cringe to watch it. The only good news is, the crazies in that right-wing mode are generally older, and will be fading from existence, as society matures and becomes more open-minded.

 

I'd go further than that and say that the crazies on the right control the agenda of the GOP. The crazies on the left are the crazies on the left. Michael Moore doesn't control our agenda. Keith Olbermann was never hosting or even promoting latte parties during the Bush administration. Yet sitting members of Congress apologize and clarify when they call Rush Limbaugh "just an entertainer."

 

I'm gonna say something that I think a few people won't want to hear. The more I look back at the last few months, the more I wonder if Jimmy Carter wasn't right the other night when he said a large amount of this outrage and anger is motivated by race. I think its a legitimate possibility that some, including some of the people fomenting this anger, have that idea at its base.

 

In 2000, George Bush won an election in the slushy margin. The decision to give Bush the Presidency was strange at best, and insiduously political at worst. Yet in 2001, there was no great liberal uprising - despite the embarrassment that the Bush administration was rapidly becoming in June, July and August. Granted, Bush's agenda in 2001 was far less ambitious. He seemed more interested in taking a weekend to clear brush while thinking about stem cells than he did on making big changes in policy. Nobody was showing up at town halls with guns. Nobody was marching on Washington with signs that said, we come unarmed (this time).

 

In 2004, there was a lot more anger and Bush won reelection on a very narrow electoral margin. He went after Social Security. There was opposition. That opposition succeeded without violence or even the threat of violence.

 

I don't know what's the main motivator here. Is it the start of decades in the wilderness for a movement that's running out of gas? That tends to be really ugly. Is it a nasty byproduct of a compartmentalized media who rewards the loudest and most sensationalist voices over the ones of reason? Or is it the natural expansion of a GOP tradition of refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic controlled Presidency and Congress.

 

I think the craziness and protests we've seen, at the level we've seen, are either the legacy of George Wallace, Ted Turner or Newt Gingrich. And frankly all three of those options disturb me to a certain degree.

[lostfan]

Uh, I would rope them into the left wing as much as you want to rope in these people on the right. These people are a major part of the biggest parts of the Democratic platform, such as the guys who think it is a good idea to fire bomb car dealerships to protect the environment. I don't see that as any different than lumping the Klansmen in with the right because they are religious. By and large these people vote Democratic, and are on the Democratic side of policy. The way you guys are defining the right wing, that makes these guys a legitmate part of the left wing.

No, they really don't, that's a hilarious, borderline desperate exaggeration. The Dems aren't anywhere near far enough left for these guys and they despise the entire system, to include the Democrats who they think are complicit. Think about this logically for a minute. If hypothetically they WERE a big part of the Democratic platform then they wouldn't be out fire-bombing dealerships and setting mansions on fire because they would have significant influence in the government and they wouldn't feel the need to resort to domestic terrorism tactics to change policy.

Edited September 16, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Labor unions support the democratic party, but what else are they gonna do? The other major party doesn't think they should be allowed to exist.

 

 

I don't know of too many cases of extreme violence by labor unions. There are cases, but they are few.

 

Now violence against labor unions has been much worse in the history of this country.

I'm surprised how many people don't notice how much of a paradox it is to have environmentalists and union activists/trade protectionists in the same party, both heavily involved in pushing policy.

[bmags]

I'd go further than that and say that the crazies on the right control the agenda of the GOP. The crazies on the left are the crazies on the left. Michael Moore doesn't control our agenda. Keith Olbermann was never hosting or even promoting latte parties during the Bush administration. Yet sitting members of Congress apologize and clarify when they call Rush Limbaugh "just an entertainer."

 

I'm gonna say something that I think a few people won't want to hear. The more I look back at the last few months, the more I wonder if Jimmy Carter wasn't right the other night when he said a large amount of this outrage and anger is motivated by race. I think its a legitimate possibility that some, including some of the people fomenting this anger, have that idea at its base.

 

In 2000, George Bush won an election in the slushy margin. The decision to give Bush the Presidency was strange at best, and insiduously political at worst. Yet in 2001, there was no great liberal uprising - despite the embarrassment that the Bush administration was rapidly becoming in June, July and August. Granted, Bush's agenda in 2001 was far less ambitious. He seemed more interested in taking a weekend to clear brush while thinking about stem cells than he did on making big changes in policy. Nobody was showing up at town halls with guns. Nobody was marching on Washington with signs that said, we come unarmed (this time).

 

In 2004, there was a lot more anger and Bush won reelection on a very narrow electoral margin. He went after Social Security. There was opposition. That opposition succeeded without violence or even the threat of violence.

 

I don't know what's the main motivator here. Is it the start of decades in the wilderness for a movement that's running out of gas? That tends to be really ugly. Is it a nasty byproduct of a compartmentalized media who rewards the loudest and most sensationalist voices over the ones of reason? Or is it the natural expansion of a GOP tradition of refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic controlled Presidency and Congress.

 

I think the craziness and protests we've seen, at the level we've seen, are either the legacy of George Wallace, Ted Turner or Newt Gingrich. And frankly all three of those options disturb me to a certain degree.

 

But just as in the sixties, it wasn't just about race. It's not that they see barack obama as inferior. It's they see their privileged role in america as slipping from underneath them. Except, the sixties that was happening, now it just seems to be being passed down to them from above. I don't get it. I'm all for speaking up. I understand worrying about the deficits. I don't understand this incoherent protest against everything and anything.

 

[chunk23]

A lot of the hatred is motivated by race. Tim Wise has done an excellent job revealing and explaining it. It also happens to be the area my thesis work is focused on.

 

Just a note though, in his first six months in office, Bush got the 1.6 trillion tax cut, No Child Left Behind, cut stem cell funding, and blocked funding to organizations associated with abortion. He got a lot done right away. And there was definitely opposition. There were the global Iraq War protests that went completely ignored. There were protests about the election. But, as has been said, these protesters did not receive a voice in the media the same way the protesters of today have. Racism has always been easy to manipulate, ie the Southern Strategy, welfare reform, anything regarding immigration reform.

 

But just as in the sixties, it wasn't just about race. It's not that they see barack obama as inferior. It's they see their privileged role in america as slipping from underneath them. Except, the sixties that was happening, now it just seems to be being passed down to them from above. I don't get it. I'm all for speaking up. I understand worrying about the deficits. I don't understand this incoherent protest against everything and anything.

 

Racism has often been used in class warfare as a way to maintain conflict and avoid solidarity between groups in the lower class. By telling people "they took your jobs", instead of "we shipped your jobs overseas or are paying migrant workers 80 cents a day", it creates a very easy target.

Edited September 16, 2009 by chunk23

[kapkomet]

It's so laughable that you all think racism is a major factor of all this. But go on thinking that. Then you wonder why it is said that the Democrats are really the racists. Here's a perfect example of why... because you think this is majorly to do with race.

[chunk23]

People say democrats are the real racists because of classic projection. Saying racism is not a part of this is just so so ignorant.

 

 

 

Yeah, there's certainly no element of race to those protesters.

[lostfan]

lol did someone tell that guy you CAN be from Kenya AND be a Christian?

[chunk23]

Reality has no place in the minds of those people, so it wouldn't matter.

[GoSox05]

Kenya is a mostly christian nation. You could tell that guy that, but I don't think he would get it.

[kapkomet]

Reality has no place in the minds of those people, so it wouldn't matter.

And yours either, apparently, since opposition to Obama = racism.

[Balta1701]

The best newsman in the country last night became probably the first one anywhere to spend some serious time talking about the implications of the case the Supreme Court heard last week regarding eliminating all corporate campaign finance rules.

COLBERT: If this goes through, if they decide in favor of the corporations here, what's going to happen to elections?

 

(CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey) TOOBIN: Well, they will be essentially deregulated. Corporations will be allowed to give money, corporations will be allowed to broadcast programs that are in favor of one side or another, it'll basically be no more rules about what corporations can do in political campaigns.

 

COLBERT: Now when I ran for President in 2008, as the Hail to the Cheese Doritos Stephen Colbert campaign for President, I was told that I actually couldn't do that, that I was breaking federal election law by being sponsored by that corporation. But if this goes through, if this court case, if they win, does that mean that I retroactively won the election?

 

TOOBIN: I don't think it means that.

 

COLBERT: But could you do that? Could I actually just wear a NASCAR suit and just have logos all over me and run for President as the sort of Gatorade Thirst for Justice campaign for President?

 

TOOBIN: You definitely could. No question.

 

COLBERT: What does it mean to individual donation? A corporation, as a person, gets to give any amount of money, but I as a person can give only $2,500.

 

TOOBIN: That's what's potentially the next legal challenge. Because if giving money is a form of speech, as the Court has held at various times, you can't prohibit a company from giving money. And then presumably the next step would be that you couldn't have limits on how much individuals could give either. That's the potential implication of this decision.

 

COLBERT: So right now, corporations would actually have more power as people than people, until people catch up with corporations.

 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Jeffrey Toobin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

[chunk23]

And yours either, apparently, since opposition to Obama = racism.

 

Please show me where I've said that.

[kapkomet]

Please show me where I've said that.

Oh you said partly. Yeah, that gives you your out to say whatever you want.

 

[chunk23]

Oh you said partly. Yeah, that gives you your out to say whatever you want.

 

 

I never said all opposition to Obama is born completely out of racism. I said there is a racial component to quite a bit of the opposition to Obama. I then backed it up with evidence.

 

You attacked a statement I never made, then when I corrected you, you just ignored what I really said.

Edited September 17, 2009 by chunk23

[kapkomet]

I never said all opposition to Obama is born completely out of racism. I said there is a racial component to quite a bit of the opposition to Obama. I then backed it up with evidence.

 

You attacked a statement I never made, then when I corrected you, you just ignored what I really said.

Hello, I said that. You said again - PARTLY - which means what I said was wrong. I'm pretty sure that was pretty plain english there.