So what makes Barack so different from McCain? Primarily, McCain didn't utter even a tenth of the troubling remarks Obama made, and less than a tenth of the questionable associations. What makes Barack so different is his party affiliation, and the butt-slobbering adoration of mainstream media.
The fear the Right feels for Barack has nothing to do with the color of his skin, and everything to do with the words that have come out of his mouth.
Feodor and Dan were just as fearful of a McCain presidency as the Right is of Obama. So where's the dividing line, because it's certainly not race. It must be political and spiritual ideology.
Gun sales would never have spiked after a McCain win because McCain has never supported the banning of gun-- nor has he ever spoken negatively about our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Folks like ER, Dan, and-- based on his plethora of comments here and elsewhere --Feodor, have criticized George Bush relentlessly. But as I said elsewhere, the Left has never been gracious in defeat.
This blog's purpose is not to trash Obama day in and day out. It is to chronicle what an Obama presidency means for American liberty. The "STASI" post is a direct quote from Obama himself.
For those who disagree... fine. That is your right. But don't think simply because you disagree with us, that our fears are unfounded. If nothing comes of those fears the Right will heave of great collective sigh of relief. But what are we to think with Franken and the Dems not even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing the senate race in Minnesota? Just like they tried to do in Florida 2000, and Ohio 2004. Why are the Democrats so feverishly glazed with eagerness over the thought of a filibuster proof Senate?
Nothing good will come of such a thing. Nothing "good" resides in the heart of the Democratic party; not if Howard Dean is any indication. Not if Harry Reid is any indication. Not if Nancy Pelosi is any indication. And not if that hell-bound lying son of a bitch Jack Murtha is ANY indication... sincerest apologies to the scumbag's mother.
"You think the RNC could get this many people of color into a single room?...Maybe if they got the hotel staff in there."
--Howard Dean, Feb. 2005
"The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser."
--Harry Reid, May 2005
Now that we have control of Congress we will do something to help the American people with these high fuel prices.
--Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 13, 2006
"No goddamn way this carpetbagger’s gonna beat me!"
--Jack Murtha, Oct 28, 2008. Speaking of Retired Army LTC William Russell; this after Murtha called his constituents "Racists" and "Rednecks" and accused fellow Marines [Semper Fi!] of cold-blooded murder; all but one of whom has been exonerated with no apology from Murtha for trying and convicting them in the court of public opinion.
Nothing "good" resides in the heart of the Democratic party; not if talk of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is any indication.
You truly seem bound and determined to hate Obama so I should just let you go and do so. But since you're dragging my name into this, I will make at least one small note. You said:
ReplyDeleteFolks like ER, Dan, and-- based on his plethora of comments here and elsewhere --Feodor, have criticized George Bush relentlessly.
Correction: I have criticized some of Bush's policies fairly consistently, when I thought those policies were dangerously wrong.
I will note that, on my blog, I have not talked about either Bush OR Obama with anywhere near the frequency or hatefulness that you do.
Let go, Eric. Let God.
God Bless American, Dan, not God D---- America!!! Think about it, Christian!
ReplyDeleteYou wonder what the left's reaction to a McCain Presidency might be? I think it only fair to say that, in all probability, it would be as intense as your own here.
ReplyDeleteThe differences, however, would be two-fold. Based upon the eight years of the Bush Administration running one of the most secretive, corrupt, and crime-infested Administrations in American history - whether it's the multiple overreaches of Executive Power slapped down by the Supreme Court; Guantanamo Bay; rendition and torture; the politically motivated firings of Attorneys General; the NSA's domestic spying program; the outing of Valerie Plame and the destruction of an entire intelligence network in Iran, hurting out national security (these are just a few, anyone can add to it) - there would be an actual, real-world track record for Democrats and liberals to use.
On the other hand, your many references to Obama's Marxism, his plans for a STASI-like secret police force, his plans for shredding the Constitution (considering the damage done to it by the Bush Administration, it seems to me he doesn't have a lot of work to do on that score) are nothing more than the dangerous fears and fantasies of ill-informed individuals who are reacting to what other people say about a person.
While the quotes you pull out and post are certainly interesting, I do not think that an individual quote, even if it is by someone in a position of power and authority, means anything. Sure, many Democrats have nothing but contempt for George W. Bush personally. Many others - including the liberals posting here - care little to nothing about George W. Bush the man. This isn't personal.
On the other hand, judging by the combination of vitriol directed at the President-elect and the prepubescent name-calling that is directed at liberal commenters here, it is all personal for you. Worse, you are, to a person, blind to difference between us as groups of individuals. None of us who have commented critically here - Dan, Feodor, myself, ER - have any animus against any of you gentlemen personally. I will admit I have been frustrated, especially by some of the more ridiculously immature things some of you have written, and I lost my cool a bit on one or two occasions. There is a difference, however, between losing one's cool for a moment, and systematically insulting and attempting to belittle others.
While I understand that none of this will be received well - why should it? When have any of you, in my own experience, actually considered anything we have written to be of value? - I put it out here for the record. Yes, I have stated that I am far more interested in keeping an eye on this site than in taking you seriously, but that is only because there is not a shred of real world evidence to back up any of your claims. When it is presented, it is dismissed. I do not argue with anti-evolutionists, Holocaust-deniers, Flat Earthers, or people who spin fantasies of the coming Red Revolution in America that Barack Obama will herald. Such arguments grant the opponent the privilege of having a position of substantive worth; none of those mentioned do.
Yet, this is not personal. I cannot stress that enough. We can agree to disagree on all matter of things - whether it is religion, or politics, or art, or music, or baseball, or whatever - and still conduct ourselves with a modicum of decency. None of you gentlemen have ever, to my knowledge, displayed a moment of fellow-feeling; you ridicule, you belittle, you dismiss, in the name of . . . political ideology? These ideas have become far more important than other human beings to you, real human beings with families and jobs and lives that are far more important than any of the words printed on computer screens.
Yet the most hostile among you - as-Ozarka, ELAshley, Mark - just seem content to be bullies. As someone who was bullied a bit in elementary school (and who wasn't?), I was told there are two ways to deal with them. You either ignore them, or you beat the shit out of them. I have no intention of doing either. So, you will have to deal with our presence - in America, people think differently, yet you just can't get it through your heads that this is OK - and we will have to deal with your childishness and narrow-minded ways.
No hatefulness in this post, Dan. Geoffrey at least is being honest, despite his perspective being a bit skewed. But you, Dan... true, "your blog" rarely sported hateful posts about Bush, but your comments on other blogs have shown you hold those feelings nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI do find it amusing that Geoffrey considers me hostile when his comments here and elsewhere are generally bristling with hostility toward those he disagrees with. Some of them have been downright condescending and mean.
"Nothing 'good' resides in the heart of the Democratic party; not if Howard Dean is any indication. Not if Harry Reid is any indication. Not if Nancy Pelosi is any indication. And not if that hell-bound lying son of a bitch Jack Murtha is ANY indication."
ReplyDeleteSweeping generalizations and personal attacks that's why I see you as a GOP sheep in stead of a critically thinking political writer. Coupled with your continued lack of research and discussing politics with you becomes a never-ending battle of education and humanization. ... Giving you the facts the republican spin-meisters don't give you. Bringing you realization of caricatures and demons that have been created and placed before your eyes.
1. Howard Dean will no longer be DNC chair. His term is soon to expire and he has said he wants to do something else.
2. Nancy Harry Dean and Jack are all human beings with families and friends and are no in fact ravening monsters or mustachioed Machiavelli villains. They see themselves as working to ward the good of the nation, just as you see yourself. That you and they disagree on what the nation's best good is is not a failure of their intelligence or morality. It is only a sign of the differences in each of your political theology. The only objective way to measure the relative good of these competing theologies is to examine which improves the majority of Americans' lives. And the greatest thing about America is they/wee get to choose which is better serving our needs. I'm sorry America no longer needs/wants your political theology. Try not to be a sore loser.
I know it's tough but unlike spiritual theology, people who have a different political theology are not in fact evil. Perhaps no one has ever made that point to you before.
How, exactly, is my perspective skewed, Eric? Because I call out bigotry and fear and rage and hatred when it is quite clear? All the protestations of truthfulness and vigilance in defense of freedom ring hollow when all of you supported an Administration that shredded the constitution, supported torture, war waged to no purpose and without end, the endangering of our national security to pursue a political vendetta. All of these are well-chronicled facts; never mind the crumbling economy, there are enough reasons to vote against a Republican for high office for a long time to come given the past eight years. I don't consider this skewed, I consider it sanity.
ReplyDeleteAs bent notes, and as I tried to make clear in my previous comment, this isn't about good versus evil, or real Americans versus anti-Americans (or even, as al-Ozarka would insist, anti-Godliness). It is just about two different political philosophies. All of us are a wondrous, confounding mix of good and evil, and I daresay that I am far more critical of myself both personally and publicly than any of you could ever be. It's just politics, which is a dirty, ruthless game, a necessary evil to keep our societies in line and moving forward. We are not now, nor have we been for some time, moving forward, so it is necessary to give an opportunity to others who have some ideas about starting the engines of state and commerce. All the nonsense about losing liberties and the coming communist state and all the rest of it - it is meaningless because that is not what it has ever been about.
Dan is a much better person than I, as he attempts, over and over, to discuss the issues meaningfully and substantively with you. Yet, you have been far more harsh toward him than he deserves. To me, that tells me all I need to know. You honestly do not care about facts, about reasonableness, about even considering the possibility that your perspective is not the solely correct perspective. I, for one, am open to being convinced, yet I have yet, at least at this site and in my encounters with all of you at others, been treated not only with common courtesy and respect, which I at least attempted at the beginning, but have repeatedly been told that I do not have any facts to support my assertions.
I cannot even begin to tell you how ridiculous it is to attempt to deal with people who do not recognize reality when it comes up and introduces itself to them. You spin fantasies of American Secret Police, yet liberals and Democrats have been fighting the Bush Administration on this very issue for years; it's called the NSA's domestic spying program and it's been in the papers and on TV and the radio and you and the rest of your right wing friends have staunchly defended it. Now, it seems an offhand comment by Obama during the campaign that is far more in reference to beefing up things like the National Guard and other Emergency Response teams suddenly becomes a threat to Civil Liberties.
How are we supposed to take you seriously?
Come on.
I think Geoff's crushing on you, Dan.
ReplyDeleteOzzie, I am flattered. Unlike you, my manhood is not threatened by being called a fag. Some of the best, most moral, most decent human beings I have ever known have been gay and lesbian. I would be proud to be counted among them. Alas, I am wired to be attracted to women.
ReplyDeleteExcept, of course, for right-wing closet cases, which just get me going . . .
I truly believe that Dan could bore someone to death.
ReplyDeleteWhile all the time entertaining J-Off.
The problems with Bush are fundamentally with the disrepair wrecked on our principles as a democratic nation of laws central to freedom and our international standing.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty with McCain are mostly with the last three months: blithely choosing an incompetent to potentially be 72-year old heartbeat away from the Presidency; adopting campaign tactics which he deplored in 2000 by saying he would not take the low road to the highest office in the land and win the Presidency the wrong way: robocalls spreading smear and innuendo.
Before these things, McCain was many things, all of them respectable or inconsiderable personality flaws.
A McCain Presidency was once not a thing to abhor. It shifted into that territory from August on, but only for potential horrors.
Bush is the third worst President this country has ever had, behind Hoover under whom 25% of Americans were out of work, poorly housed, poorly fed, and Buchanan, who did nothing as we crept toward Civil War.
Wow! As long as you continue to use the word "bigotry" in your rantings, gentle Geoffrey, you've no standing to complain about hatred. Such a charge is hateful, indeed, as it is a complete lie.
ReplyDeleteAs to reality, you only cling to your version of it. Take domestic spying. It has never been about random spying on citizens, but only on those who have received troubling communications from overseas. THIS is what has been documented and you and yours on the left insist on the lie that it is about a president spying on his people. Not reality at all.
You cling to such things as what the Supremes ruled on Bush's policies, as if that clinches the deal regarding right and wrong on the issue. As you may be unaware, The Supremes render "opinions", which, despite having a legal impact on behaviors and policies, can still be wrong.
You cling to the notion that there was some crime in the Valeri Plame case for which the Bush admin is to blame. Nothing has ever been uncovered to support that, though one man lost his job unfairly, and another, who actually did the outing, is free as a bird.
Charges of criminality and corruption are only that, charges, and unfounded charges at that. I once again point to our discussion at your blog regarding Bush lies and how your list was shown to be bereft of them.
It is YOU who deals in fantasy Geoffrey my boy. We are going by what we read and judging accordingly. Forgive us if we become frustrated dealing with constant distortions by the likes of you and yours. We are completely open to supported arguments and look forward to someday seeing one.