Republicans are sore losers.
 

Bricks have been hurled through Democrats' windows, a propane line was cut at the home of a congressman's brother and lawmakers who voted for a federal health care bill have received phone threats in the days before and after passage of the sweeping legislation.

Authorities are investigating incidents in Kansas, Virginia and other places, including Rochester, N.Y., where a brick tossed through the window of a county Democratic Party office had a note attached that said: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," roughly quoting the late Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee.

The FBI and Capitol Police were briefing Democratic lawmakers on how to handle perceived security threats after at least 10 reported incidents, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Those who feel they are at risk will be "getting attention from the proper authorities," Hoyer said, declining to say whether any are now receiving added security. Normally only those in leadership positions have personal security guards.

The threats surprised an official with a think tank that monitors extremist groups.

"I think it is astounding that we are seeing this wave of vigilantism," said Mark Potok of the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center.

In Virginia, authorities were investigating after someone cut a propane line leading to a grill at the Charlottesville home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello's brother. Perriello also said a threatening letter was sent to his brother's house.

The home's address was posted online by tea party activists angry about the Virginia Democrat's vote in favor of the health care overhaul. They had mistaken the brother's address for that of the lawmaker.

Potok compared the online posting of a public official's address to tactics used by hate groups.

"This is what neo Nazi leaders in America do today," Potok said. "They post personal information about their enemies and sit back and wait for somebody else to act."

In western New York, police are investigating after bricks were thrown through windows at two Democratic offices, but there have been no arrests. One was thrown through a window at Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter's district office in Niagara Falls early Friday.

Slaughter, whose district stretches from Rochester to the Buffalo area, has been a key supporter of the health care reform bill passed by the House on Sunday.

Sometime from late Saturday or Sunday in Rochester, N.Y., a brick was hurled at a wooden-framed glass door of the county Democratic Committee offices. The county party's spokesman, Sean Hart, said the glass "only spider-webbed" but didn't shatter, and the brick then appeared to have been picked up and thrown through the adjoining glass door.

I am not sure that you can attribute such incidents to an entire party, or political wing. Who could ignore the multiple death threats to George W. Bush during protests by opposition forces? This isn't a Republican thing, it's a wacko, crazy extremist thing, of which both sides possess elements.

this is what happens when those who are elected to office forget who it is they are working for. If you ignore the will of the people, who are the soveriegn power in this country, then you will be reminded.....hopefully you'll get the point.

I don't know if you can put it on all Republicans. I think a more apt thread title would be "The most vocal proponents of the Republican Party's goals are sore losers."

I think it will be interesting to see if those in charge of the party can successfully straddle this line they've made for themselves where on one side they fill people's heads with frightening thoughts using half-truths and outright falsehoods, practically begging their followers to do something stupid and counterproductive and on the other side they halfheartedly denounce the folks who take their hints and do something stupid and counterproductive.

they are screwed either way they go. damned if you do and damned if you don't. they made their bed, now they can lie in it.

I agree you cant blane the extremist actions on the Republican party, just as you cant blame some of vitriol exposed right before the vote (shouting n word at Black Congressmen and gay slurs at Barney Frank....

But you can blames the Senate Republicans for the latest childish action of imposing a rarely, if ever, used Senate rule that prohibits any hearings after 2:00 pm.

Today, Senate Homeland Security subcommittee oversight hearing on Contracts for Afghan National Police Training had to be canceled as well as an Armed Services Committee hearing in which military commanders flew in from Japan and Korea....just two of many canceled and preventing the Senate from performing its oversight responsibilities.

Petty?

Or some may think its a good thing!

I bet they're just trying to spot the Democrats some political points to make it seem more fair this fall, since, you know, the Republicans are going to retake congress in November ;).

I also see the way BOTH sides handle how things are done as a major problem.

It's not a "war" or a "battle" and shouldn't be about "winning" or "losing" to people. It's about bettering OUR country as a whole.

Whether we agree with what is passed or not, the ONLY way we will get betterment for all is through POSITIVE RESPECT and not trying to just beat people into submission. All negativity brings about is more negativity. And it eventually brings about so much negative energy, thoughts, anger, angst that people start not caring or getting more and more negative....

OUR country has too much negativity. It starts with the man we call president and flows downward. That's what I loved about Bill Clinton and Reagan. They could be battered and battered by Congress but they were in their own ways positive and tried to reach out to the other side and work together and our country flourished.

we have had since 2001 is negativity from the top down. It's no longer about "bettering the country" it's all about "winning and losing" and in return the citizens are the ones that are paying for these negative power plays.

It's time to change the politicians thinking and OUR thinking. We all are in this together. We can either work and build in positive ways or we can continue to destroy and tear down all that for 200+ years this country was built on. Teamwork, freedom, RESPECTING OTHERS, and so on.

It is up to us to decide who and what we are to be by who we elect and how we look at what positive changes can be made to better all people.

IF we can rebuild in positive ways, we will again flourish. If we continue being negative and electing negative people and looking at issues as "wars" and "battles", we will get more negativity and fall apart. We won't need an army to invade us or to go bankrupt, our negativity alone is all we need to destroy us.

The above I posted to my facebook earlier today.

Hence my apology on another thread and my anniversary work to change my tone and how I deliver my dissent. As long as both sides have leaders looking at passing bills as "winning" and "losing" OUR country will continue to divide and fall apart.

Yeah, man, that 49% plurality of people who are glad health care legislation passed... clearly not representing the will of the 40% who aren't.On this, pan, you are 100% correct.

So officials elected on a platform to bring about health care reform are elected with a clear majority... they go on to make said reform. That's how representative democracy works.

What you are suggesting is a tail wagging a dog.

What you are suggesting is not what is available under the system your founding fathers created.

Perhaps you need to find another country in which to achieve the results you wish to see because the fundamental structures of your electoral and political system are working just as they were intended.

I must have dreamed about the millions of liberals who were damned mad about the conservatives passing questionable (some I would call unconstitutional) laws with just a 51% majority. There was a popular phrase back then as well, something along the lines of 'rights of the minority.

Interesting that none of that applies now, when it concerns your own special project or concern.

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

really? is there anywhere in the constitution that clearly states that the people shall not resort to violence when their rights are being violated and written away while the courts rubber stamp it? Because i'm sure I can find a few inferences where the framers of the constitution and the writer of the declaration stated just that very thing.

Repubs become that which they hate the most, terrorists in our homeland.

While people scream and shout that this bill is turning America in to a socialist regime, even satirist can find the flaw in that logic by showing the opposite direction ends up in a totalitarian theocracy.

I'm surprised, I didn't see anyone mention the fact that these teabaggers disrespect the rights this country has worked so hard to give to it's culturally diverse population by calling members of the house things like niggers, faggots, etc. and other things I would expect out of a petulant teenager who had poor parenting.

The south will rise again they say, well if it does, we'll gladly shit all over it again. This confederacy era thinking, the scorn for government, a HELPFUL government, for the people, by the people, make absolutely zero sense.

The only reason they sought to escape and start a new country was because the government they left was a monarchy, not a republic.
Apples and Oranges.

I really hate the stupid illogical members of this society that insist on dragging us back to the primitive era of civil rights when it was just White people owning black people and whatever else it is these douchebags hold dear.

http://i.imgur.com/590Ev.png

Here is what you wrote:
Those in elected office *are* doing what they were elected to do. The Democrats campaigned on a platform of health care reform. The Republicans did not.

Once in power, the Democrats did exactly what they said they would do and worked to bring about the reform. The Republican electeded officials worked to stop it.

BOTH sides worked to serve the interests of their electorate by taking the appropriate actions upon which they ran for office.

To be clear: They do not appear to have forgotten for whom they are working. They are enacting the will of the people who elected them.


This is *not* in any way the same as a tyranny of the majority. Not even close.

If we were to follow your logic, it could be argued that if there were a sizable enough minority who didn't want to pay taxes, take out car insurance, ban automatic weapons, have sex with children, etc. We should make allowances for them *or* strike down the existing laws (Constitutional or otherwise) and let it happen.

For you to equate Health Care reform to equal rights for homosexuals, women, etc. is to miss the point of equal rights entirely.

When you have 1 side gloating and one side talking about how bad all this is, no matter how right or wrong the legislation truly is you divide the people the bill is supposed to be helping.

This whole process was not about the Dems helping the people it was about POWER. Just as it wasn't and isn't about the GOP fighting for what the majority wants... it's about POWER. The whole time this was a game of who's dick is bigger and THAT is ALL it was about. Neither side now cares about what is right or wrong or is in the best interest of ALL the people. It is all about POWER and who has the biggest.......

That is why this is so sad, so volatile so negative so wrong.

Pan, it's pretty clear to me that what this is all about in reality has little connection with what this is all about in your head. No offense, I think you're a good guy and all, but it's difficult to have this conversation over and over again.

The real reason this situation is so sad is that it isn't really sad, but that there is a great deal of political hay to be made by making it seem more tragic than it actually is.

I think we can all agree that political power is an aspect of just about anything that goes down in Washington. As such, I find its pretty much a wash. It taints everything and nothing.

I look at the results and ask: Given the acrimony and difficulty to get *anything* done in Washington is this a step in the right direction? To my eyes, yes it is.

Can you honestly sit there and say that the Dems did the BEST they possibly could for EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES?

If you can, then I suspect (just a guess) you are blinded by partisan politics and short of some serious travesty would find what they do acceptable no matter what. I am probably wrong and I am sure you will tell me so, but as I said it was a guess.

I honestly do not believe EITHER party did the best they could and that is what I stated. MY OPINION.

So I read these posts and wondered if there was anything worth saying or commenting on and all I came to was that it doesn't matter if your republican, liberal, democrat, leftist, righty, pro bill, no bill, it really in the end doesn't matter a hill of beans if we can't work together toward a resolve with amicable results, that is what we all truly want.

We all want are neighbors healthy, we all want life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness, we all want personal freedom, and none of these can be achieved with petty childish behavior and name calling.

Pigeon-holing people and judging them because of what party they like to drink at, really isn't America. The best party ever, no matter, is the one we are all at together. There is just no excuse for violence among our brother and sister Americans, it is a lack of maturity and self control in individuals who lack self discipline, shame on them.

I do not agree with terrorist mentality or behavior, it damages all the fair perceptions of honest and good American character not just party lines, fuck politics, it reflects on all Americans as a nation and depicts us as the immature nation we are, adolescent and growing, the youngest nation in the world, we do have our growing pains, lets just hope, somehow we grow together and not apart, for all our sakes.

Stop party line name calling, it's just immature, a person crosses the line when they resort to violence to express their opinions, period, at that point they are just a criminal, not a patriot, we all know that, republican or democrat, we are still in this together.

Does this bill prevent the "BEST they possibly could for EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES" from coming true?

The question is not whether something is the "BEST they possibly could for EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES," the question is whether this is better than the status quo.

When the people willing the rant and rave the loudest still have no clue what is in the bill, yet they rant and rave, it is very hard to reach "the BEST."

Just a heads up... the US is not the youngest nation in the world. Please have a look at this list of nations listed by their Independence Days from oldest to youngest: Independence Day for Every Country

/end threadjack

Perhaps. OR perhaps, this is a chest thumping "I have a bigger schlong" bill.

See, whereas, you may settle for what the bill is (and I wonder how much is just partisan pride), I choose to want to believe they could have done better, BOTH SIDES. I don't believe that they even tried to get something done that was better. The GOP played games and the Dems played games, neither side willing or wanting to work together to find a better bill.

You know, all this comes down to essentially the same problem: the two-party system kinda sucks.

Based on its concepts of constitutional freedoms with no historical link to the land it grew upon, that kind of young nation, not a place that split from another body on the same shared land to create its own nation.

Sorry for not elaborating on that the first time.. you know the whole American E thing you guys all hate me to use, and then make me have to explain, I've been trying not to use it so as not to offend anyone and make them think I am some American supremacy idiot, which I am not, so stop asking.

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

yin-yang, how can you appreciate the left if you don't have the right to contradict it and make you question reality and how can you appreciate the right if you don't have the left reminding you to take notice to what is breathing around you. How could we have the AFC without the NFC, how could we not have perspective and debate and learn and listen and argue and play, America is a place of unique freedom, where people enjoy the sucky two-party equality and its check and balances.

It is the true enjoyment of competition we desire to excel at and prove ourselves with nothing to hold us back but the people who say we can't do that. Like can't have speakers who may say incendiary things, if that were reality, we would have no comics. God bless America.

But you don't need a two-party system to have these things.

It doesn't sound like you've been enjoying it lately, and I don't know how you can call them equal. Do you mean by general relative size/political power? And the American system isn't the only one with an effective system of checks and balances.

Again, this isn't unique to the two-party system.

Don't you see the disadvantages of a two-party system? I mean, I know technically there are other parties, but they hold no real political power. Don't you see a problem with that? Is the Republican response somewhat tied into the mentality of "we have only one political adversary"?

Filtherton, if you took a moment to try to see it from pans' POV maybe you could concede a little in the "we don't want to give up any freedom period" issue, but funny as you say pans' argument is all just reality in his head it echos the same in yours just the other side.

I think you are both throwing rocks at the same mound, just not realizing your both trying to fill up the same hole. I think its rude to assume he doesn't understand your point of view and say he is out of touch with the reality of the situation when you have never once conceded the fact that you really may be giving up quite a bit of freedom, quite a bit, and yet repeatedly both pan and I and most who are debating this are not suggesting preventing health care for all, just attempting to insure Americans basic freedoms as well.

color me shocked that dk supports the terrorist actions of these thugs

It is not the tone or the POV that I find frustrating....it is the repetition and regurgitation of the same old baseless talking points that are simply factually incorrect. ( I can provide numerous examples).

And, IMO, the lack of intellectual curiosity to learn more about the legislation (can find lots of partisan opinions to support one's pre-conceived agenda but "couldnt find the bill? wtf!) if it might challenge one's basic assumptions.

That's just it, I don't have a political adversary, I don't even have a dogged "political" opinion, but I have many personal and individual thoughts. I have an idea of what some parties tend to lean towards, but I think most Americans linger at the top of the political bell curve. I think other countries make more of our politics that we do, for us it's part of the freedom, it's part of life. I like the excitement, and the drama can be entertaining. You know what Baraka, I just love America, warts and all. No I'm not calling Obama a wart.

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

It took me a while to find it also, but I kept looking and was grateful when it was made available to me. I'm sure as someone who understands policy, you know sometimes one must reiterate in a myriad of ways to cover all your bases, and make all you points.

I think if you felt the way we do about the whole freedom issue, or at least accepted it as a potential personal threat you would not see it as regurgitation but more as an opportunity to continue attempting to convince those who don't conform that it's o,k, to give up a little freedom, right. I mean if its for a for a good cause and all, right. :expressionless:

Don't give up on us so easy dc_dux you never know when one of us will break and saw, ah shucks ya'll were right, hell it's just a little freedom, who needs it anyway when we got such great and trusted people to take care of us, right?

Aaah, yes... "freedom!" That amorphous concept used as a battle cry by those that don't know what it's like to go a day without it.

Turns out freedom is a subjective term, not a Hormel product that is canned and distributed to whitebread America as part of their birthright.

"Were you surprised? I was surprised."

Hell, I've seen some local idjits lowering American flags, displaying the flag upside down, hoisting Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me"s, etc. It's downright ridiculous. As far as the flag, they're disrespecting the symbol of 200+ years of national progress over a relatively petty issue... one that will probably be glossed over in a history textbook 50 years from now as a stepping stone to something a major world power does for its people. Some of my $100k/year neighbors are hoarding 5.56 and preparing for The Man to come and assault their compound. What the fuck, over? Did I miss the Armageddon memo?

Please. Enough of the fucking man tantrums. I'm sure the same crowd had issues when blacks became human and women became voters.

...

It's like two very different worlds in the same country.

...

To all the democrats? Congratulations on mediocrity. To all the paranoid conservative/Republican lemmings? The cliff is that way.

I think you are missing my point about repeating baseless talking points.

"poor folks making $10/hr will have to pay money they cant afford"

"Senior will lose their basic Medicare benefits"

"Govt bureaucrats will make your health care decisions"

They're gonna "pull the plug" on Grandma!

The list goes on and on.

This has nothing to do with chipping away at individual freedoms....it is fear mongering at its worst and not grounded in reality.

A majority of Americans support this legislation. It's the angry, confused, spiteful minority with bricks. What happens when you follow the will of the people and you're still threatened? Isn't that a less noble thing?

BTW, the thread title should probably be Some Republicans are Weak-Minded Cowards. That way we're not lumping all Republicans together, but we're giving the guilty Republicans what for.

Yeah... ya know, I don't recall throwing bricks at anybody when the Clinton AWB went through.

There is a place you can go to calculate what this bill means to you monetarily and yes, anyone making over 35,000.00 will be paying, one way or another, actually both, insurance and taxes. Some people will be hurt by these additional fees, fact.

There has been a great deal of discussion about how this bill will water down medicare, that is a fact, whether it happens or not is yet to be seen.

It will not be the bureaucrats, it will be who the bureaucrats put in the position of making decisions, along with the insurance companies, they will be the regulators and money handlers, the gov will just pay the bill.

They may not pull the plug on grandma, but they will definitely help her put her hand on it if she wants to. They will lean more towards respectful death than a vegi life, which I actually agree with, but that's my warped thinking. They will not be advocates for or attempt to sell late in life extreme measures to preserve the living, it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to try and keep old people alive, simple economics that one.

Man, you know what would get people involved in politics? a 2 party society instead of just a 2 party government.

Want to register as a republican and decry the government? oh well you're not allowed to live your life in hypocrisy anymore. You wont have to pay taxes, but you also wont be able to use publicly funded roads, take advantage of public emergency services. That's right, your house is burning down? hope you have water to put it out, oh wait, you can't use the public water source either.

but most of all, hey, you wont have to worry about that pesky health care bill.

Again, false.

What does the health-care law mean to me? (washingtonpost.com)

The amount of falsehoods you've been saying is astounding.

In that case, by your definition both Singapore and Canada are younger than the United States. And very strong arguments, using your definition, could be made for much of Latin America being younger than the United States.

Sorry to nit pick.

Ya know the title of this thread is inflammatory in and of itself. It implies ALL Republicans believe in violence and are sore losers.

If the bill hadn't passed the Dems would be crying foul and being sore losers (I don't think there's have been violence but who knows given today's society).

People that use violence are using things like this as an excuse to do violent acts. There should be no "the Republicans are sore losers look at the violence". These people would have found another reason.

We are so divided, we are fed so much negativity and hatred on BOTH sides it's fucking ridiculous.

I know that people here are going to find fault and tell me how wrong I am with the next statement but ya know what..... I believe it is more true than anything that goes through the small minds of partisan people who are happy when things go their way and want to see failure when things don't go their way (and YES, I AM INCLUDED in that, hopefully, though I am changing and can recognize it before I allow the negativity to spew out.)

The statement I believe: The vast majority of US citizens (probably 85+%) want nothing more than to be able to own (rent) a place they can call home, have a decent standard of living and be able to have enough money to afford to live. The politicians and extreme partisans don't care about those people. All they care about is power and getting WHAT THEY WANT... not what is best for the country. Thus, they feed the division and negativity in this country. People are fed up, depressed and living in fear of losing everything they worked for and all our politicians and partisans care about is the power they wield.

And I think the biggest problem with the health care bill, isn't what is in it or what isn't but how it was PERCEIVED (which was shady) to be passed, the gloating and the fact that for the first time I can remember people truly spoke out and kept saying "NO" and their voices were ignored. The Dems. didn't EVEN try to explain what was being passed and allowed the people to believe the negativity (which in and of itself is negative and not a positive). So if you pass this bill and allow negativity to grow and add to it, of course anger and negativity will be the result. Then the GOP didn't OFFER anything except negativity. Thus adding more to the anger and negativity of the people.

People are losing good paying jobs, their homes, unable to barely eek out an existence and our leaders just keep piling on negativity. That is not the sign of people that want to better the country. That is poor leadership and a way to destroy a country and people. It starts at the top with Obama, it goes through ALL Congress and flows into our very homes.

This fucking negativity has to end and we need LEADERS that will bring true hope, true change and true belief back to this country. Unfortunately after all this, there is no doubt in my mind we have the wrong people (ON BOTH SIDES) to do this.

Anger is more accurately reflected by the hockey stick than is global warming.

Slow and gradual at first, only one person "going japanese" on an IRS building per reasonable amount of time, and bricks through the windows of a few choice politicians, then in a compounding manner, add more, and more, and more instances of the above (and other similarly describable activities) until .gov snaps, unleashes the law, and all hell breaks loose in the good ol' USA.

And for someone like me who can see conspiracy in anything. How hard would it be to have a hotbed, unpopular bill passed and then have threats and acts of violence against those voting yes.... to the point where either the people get scared and don't speak out on the bill OR martial Law is declared.. and the people committing the true acts are but government operatives?

I know farfetched... watched too many conspiracy movies.... have an overactive imagination.

But in my defense, the Dems know that the bill was extremely unpopular and that they may lose Congress. What easier way to hold power?

.gov has a long history of utilizing provocateurs.


COINTELPRObably a bad idea

That "extremely unpopular" rarely if ever polled below 40%, and the first poll after the passage had it more popular by a 49-40 margin. I'm sure that will be ignored too, though.

All this really tells me, as mentioned above is that the two party system is RUINING our country. Everything just winds up boiling down to us vs them, no shades of gray, no alternate viewpoints or ideas, just two rigid ideologies butting heads time and time again, doing everything they can possibly do to discredit the other side. And what does this create? A horrible divide where a country has become split so deeply that people begin viewing half of their own countrymen as an enemy. Its sad and pathetic.

Honestly at this point in my life I'm so burnt out on politics I've forced myself to just become oblivious to it. Does anybody really care whats best for our nation anymore? Or has it just become status quo to blindly support your "side" no matter what the issue or consequence? I yearn for a country that can rationally debate and decide on an issue without nearly stating a second civil war every time something doesn't go a certain way. I feel like I live in a nation full of 5 year olds sometimes. :shakehead:

It's not enough to know something about yourself if you don't learn from it. If you know you're a conspiracist, one would think you'd be more skeptical of your gut reactions. Seriously... national martial law? If that ever happens in my lifetime, I will personally track you down so I can let you feed me my shoe. That's how ludicrous the notion is.

When polled on the actual contents of the proposal, the bill has always been popular with a majority of people. When asked about the bill in a generic sense, thanks in large part to all the misinformation, the bill is less popular, but most certainly not "extremely" unpopular. Furthermore, the polls have consistently shown Democrats to be trusted on the issue of health care reform over Republicans. Most often, the polls have been fairly close, and since the bill's passage the most recent poll has shown 49% happy compared with 40% upset. (Yes I am well aware that it's just one poll, but it's the only one we've got taken entirely after the bill's passage.)

The people who are against the bill are certainly vehemently against it, but the fact that they are louder does not make the bill "extremely unpopular." If gathering in large crowds and making noise is all that's necessary to prove you represent the will of America, we'd have had comprehensive immigration reform already.

Democrats knew health care reform was a sticky issue, and they knew that back in 2008 when they campaigned on the issue and won. While the Democrats are at risk of losing the House, it's not a foregone conclusion, and most certainly not something worth creating a martial law conspiracy over. This may be a shock to you, but Congress has changed leadership many times over the years without conspiracies and martial law to prevent it from happening ;)

Pan... that sounds just a ridiculous now as when people said the same of Bush staging a coup to stay in power.

Americans really have an unnatural fear of their elected officials. It's comical.

Distrust and scepticism is healthy but really...

Please, don't lump pan's paranoia (or WinchesterAA's for that matter) in with the rest of America. I don't think I've ever met a single person in real life who has expressed such paranoid thoughts openly (barring, you know, the homeless guy down the street).

There are two threads going on this subject so I'm kind of lumping all of my responses together here.

I agree with pan that the partisan polarization in this country is tearing it apart. Where we would probably diverge is in our opinion of how it is perpetuated. I tend to think it's twofold.
1. heightened party loyalty makes it easier for politicians to run campaigns and get elected
because,
2. heightened party loyalty makes it easier for the people to follow politics because they can essentially be told what to like and not to like based on information that is rubber-stamped and funneled to them

I'll probably get in trouble for saying it, but many, many people in this country are just plain lazy when it comes to thinking about 'important issues.' That's why you have so many republicans still making the 'Obama + healthcare reform = Obama's socialist healthcare reform' regardless of how much the legislation was gutted under republican pressure. Thanks to this phenomenon of hard-wired political thinking, the viral word 'socialism' is now indelibly imprinted on the Obama presidency. Democrats do it, too, but not as skillfully as the republicans - they are the masters of this kind of viral thought dissemination.

And, since I suspect that most of this wave of violence and mischief is probably based on that kind of 'infected' thinking (taken to an extreme) in my mind they seem like stupidity of nightmarishly comic proportions - like coyote's quest to 'get' the roadrunner. This is not revolution, it is temper tantrums.

Wow, I held back a lot of 'viral' metaphors, but really, when you think about it there are a lot of similarities that can be made. It's kind of freaking me out, lol. Must write down.

---------- Post added at 08:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

Also, even though I would have liked the bill to be stronger, I am very pleased that it passed. It's only natural for a change of this magnitude to upset a proportion of the population, but given 30-40 years, which is only a blink of an eye in the evolution of a society, the right to healthcare will seem as natural as many of the other rights and benefits we take for granted in this country...I liked the bit that shauk posted (can't remember which thread it was in).

the republicans have brand identity problem.
they have been using, officially or not, an identity-based language for a long time....one typically "is" conservative as a matter of disposition or essence and one is invited to fill in the viewpoints of the moment as a way of modulating that inner core. so the big shift has been from conservatism based on a resistance to change in the world to a conservatism based on resistance to change at the level of some imaginary inward essence or being. turns out that reality pulverized alot of the older statements that gave content to this essence before cowboy george arrived on stage...since then, they've adopted a position of NO. whatever it is, NO. this to maintain brand identity by maintaining a sense that despite everything conservatives are still a coherent discrete demographic. whence the tea baggers, whence their utility. they're bodies that can exploit the conservative-friendly media apparatus to get air time.

the democrats have never been able or willing to counter this retro-identity politics. so they play a different, diffuse game.

there are other, material explanations for why it is that conservative identity politics has been able to take hold. but the fact is that cultural power is a function of repetition and of repetition to set the terms of debate, to frame issues in and frame them out. what i think we're seeing is a conflict between systems of legitimation then...conservativespeak on the way out as a function of its obvious problems with describing the world compounded by the particular actions of the bush people...but no single alternative discourse is in a position to replace it. i mean, it's not like neoliberal-speak suddenly disappeared, though it should have.

fading empires look like this.


it's pretty straightforward, the explanation for the division in the land.

how clever. making political actions an expression of the soul rather than mechanisms for social maintenance and development. therefore every bit of legislation is either a balm or an affront to one's personal integrity. I think you are right about that.

the obvious difference in this case (of sore losership) is that there are well payed, GOP-backed media figure fueling the fire of the rabble rousers

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. its all about perceptions.

to quote the infamous jack sparrow....'sticks and stones'

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, had something to say on this:

Waterloo | FrumForum

you were doing alright til you threw the race card. Then you became jesse jacksons brother.

It seems that the liberals have had people doing the exact same thing, for instance George Soros backing moveon.org.

because George Soros has the same sway over millions of people that Limbaugh and Beck do?

puh-lease

Or that many of the Tea Party rallies and events are underwritten and organized by Washington insiders and corporate lobbyists, with more patriotic names than MoveOn - Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity - and actively promoted (not just reported on) by FOX et al.

Or that much of the opposition to the health reform legislation has been funded, to the tune of more than $20 million, by the insurance and business interests in the form of patriotic sounding astro-turf organizations.

Oh, OH... why's it gotta be "brother," huh?! :D

...

Hah! Race card? Cracking open a history book and talking about blacks is now throwing the race card? Pfft, I'm talking about "middle class" white bread Americans throwing man tantrums over something that might actually help them and certainly won't ruin their day despite what they bray into the bull horn. I mentioned women gaining the vote, too. No AAA for that? Hmm. Not as touchy a subject for cold-dead-hands conservatives, apparently.

Since moveon.org claims several million members, yes. But if the requirement is demagogues who do nothing but get people wound up over silly issues, look no further then Al Sharpton.

"Party Loyalty" is one thing, violence and fear are another. It IS WRONG.


BTW, when did Socialism become a "swear word"??? It's like the Red scare/witch hunt/ all over again.....history repeating itself and no one ever learns. Why do the Republicans hate those with less so much? I think it's because GREED IS THEIR GOD.

It seems wrong when the "1%" that HAS IT ALL tries to stop the 99% (that still, at least, does have a vote) and The 99% is just trying to merely survive, stay in a house, have heat and or gas and have health care for themselves and their kids. Not to mention, let their kids feel safe in their neighborhoods and schools and perhaps have a change of a future.

When and why did America become so selfish and hateful?

I am loving this whole Obama presidency thing, to think I was all against him being president, (I was going to do the Alec Baldwin thing and leave the country when he won) All the years I paid taxes and didnt get squat out of it, woot!!!! Bought another house in 2009, It has been more than 5 years since the last, guess what? I recieved $8,000 extra dollars in my return this year, while I rent my 1st house out for twice the amount of my mortgage on it. Thank you Obama and your minions.

I already recieve free health care, if you want to consider tri-care good health care, government run red tape, bullshit is what it is, I prefer the VA hospital but it is a 45 minute ride, If this bill makes all you democrats fell like winners, then celebrate, dance in the streets, i believe it has weakend the country, not for the fact of what it is, but how it was obtained.

would you have preferred sister? :lol:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/customa...tar1168_12.gif

I will be sure to take your opinions as seriously as I take your avatar.

would that be as serious as those that had avatars of bush as hitler, or a monkey, or looking like arafat? any number of ridiculous bush avatars? or just the stupid ones based on democrats?

which one of us did that?

Isn't it interesting that when the havenots covet the stuff of the haves - it's NOT greed. But when the haves want to keep the havenots from forcibly taking their stuff, it IS called greed.

not as funny as lumping every have-not into the "lazy people unwilling to work and wanting everything for free" category

Where exactly did I lump all havenots in that category? Please attempt to understand the concept of the word "when" as a conditional. See, "when" hunnychile says this:

...she is coveting and it is indeed greed. When she does not say things like that, she is not coveting. When she elects proxy thugs (referencing her saying she has nothing but a vote) for the purpose of taking money on her behalf, she covets and it is greed. When she works hard and advances in an existing framework which rewards hard work, she is not taking from others.

You people and this ridiculous notion that there is a finite amount of "wealth" to "share" and that the only way to get more of it is to take it from others. The nation's and World's wealth has grown to reflect the contributions of the people.

Those kinds of images are just as worthless.

You probably think of yourself as a "have", hunh Cim?

I wouldn't call it greed to have the desire for shelter, food, and safety, especially for one's children. As far as not willing to have one's tax dollars spent helping those without those things, I don't know if I'd call it greed, but I would say it is at least a little bit selfish.

This assumes that all things are equitable and fair. When you leave too much to free and unfettered market, we get disproportionate values, including situations where one will work two or three jobs and still not have enough money to lift his or her family from poverty. You can't expect an out-of-work factory worker to suddenly say, "Hey, maybe I'll be a medical doctor now...." Let's not forget how wealth is generated from bottom to top.

No more than you.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Your post conveys the classic victim's mentality: "The deck is stacked against me, I will never do any better (without the help of the government)." You and I both know the hundreds/thousands of stories of people rising from very little and into something remarkable with nothing but determination on their side. I will have to take it offline sometime and tell you the story of my father. Suffice to say, you will NEVER convince me that the deck is stacked against anyone at this point in our time.

You are being very assumptive here.

You can't tell me that most economic systems don't create inequalities that are difficult to bear.

Everyone can't rise from very little into something remarkable. A system that creates disproportionate wealth requires, well, disproportionate wealth distribution.

Everyone in the world can't be rich.

Do you think people always choose to be impoverished? Maybe we just need to make The Secret mandatory reading.

Your experience as an American is that this people are fringe minorities. From the outside looking in, however, this is what we see. We see the paranoid, the tea partiers who are terrified of some vague socialist demon, we see the extreme and bizarre rhetoric of death panels and wild accusations of socialism, fascism, Nazism.

I used to wonder if this was an isolated thing, but I'm becoming more convinced that it's a product of American sensationalist media not presenting the moderate point of view. It's gotten to the point that for those of us on the outside there doesn't seem to be anything in the middle, and it becomes something of a farce.

This is the face your nation is presenting to the world.

I would consider it a problem.

Anecdotes mean nothing. There's plenty of data showing that people rarely make it out of the class they're born into, and that's not because people love living in poverty.Well yes, but that observation isn't exactly controversial. The vast majority of us are well aware that the news has become more focused on ratings and less on quality (one might argue due to the for-profit business model). But also, as much as I'm all for being a good world citizen, the job our news does of conveying America to other countries is the least of my concerns on the topic.

Thank you, Baraka (and Smethy, too) for jumping on this one. This idea that everyone can just 'raise themselves up' out of poverty is ridiculous. Our system and the nature of our communities requires that there be distinct classes including a lower class. Who is going to do the work that they do? Where exactly are all these people going to go? It irritates me to no end to hear people say things like that, esp. considering that most of the people who say it tend to be those who are against helping them regardless of what their abilities to 'get ahead' are. Not only is it incredibly naive but its an insult to the millions of people working multiple jobs just to make enough money to keep a roof over their family's heads. Get a grip.

How is this new avatar, SM? Better?, I didnt see much of your avatar bashing when Bush was president, and there were plenty of Bush photoshopped avatars all over this forum. To me they are all fooking jokers, wanting to win so badly they will push/force through a weak at best bill so their demi-god campaigns for them come this november. And for the Republicans on the hill, they should all be stripped of their health insurance, to see what it is like to worry about being terminally ill and the risk of losing everything you have worked for because of an illness.

A cagey answer to a cagey question. Fair enough, I'll come straight out with my point.

The "haves" who have originated this philosophy you espouse are "haves" at a level you and I will literally never aspire to, nor will our children or our grandchildren. Their level of affluence so far exceeds that of us mere mortals it's hard for us to even comprehend, and for the most part it's a multi-generational legacy of super wealth that the current holders did nothing to earn beyond being the lucky sperm that became the heir. Their interests are profoundly entrenched in maintaining the status quo--it's gotten them where they are, and they have the resources, you better damn well believe, to keep things that way. And they have access to the very minds of America through their ownership of the media.

So they make middle-class-folk feel like they're the ones the government is going to take money from, that they have to fight any sort of tax hike for the rich. They make you feel the persecution that they themselves feel, so you sing out at any risk to their standing.

In my opinion, middle-class conservatives are complete patsies. Just my opinion, you're free to feel differently. I'd like, before you reflexively come back at me, though, for you to think for just a second about where you get those conservative thoughts from. You have to get your notion of the virtue of hard work from somewhere, for instance. Your sense of the cause-and-effect nature of labor and reward. I know that probably seems self-evident, but they could just as easily be memes instilled in you from sources beyond your immediate grasp.

In some posts above there is some reference about people from lower classes movbing upward. I'd like to comment on that.

My father started out coming from an extremely poor 1 parent household. He had 7 half sisters and 1 half brother, who's father died in WW2. After his death for whatever reason, my grandmother and aunts and uncle became extremely poor. Then she had my dad.

As his siblings grew, one sister married a vice president of Tappan, one became a cartoonist for Hanna and Barbera, the brother joined the Air Force and was on a team to rescue the hostages in 1979 (the mission never went).

And then there was my dad. His mom was so poor she tried to sell him after his birth. They were evicted and finally "given" a shanty in the worst part of town by the church. My dad grew up in literally a 1 room dirt floor house in Mansfield Ohio, where that was unheard of because at the time the town was extremely wealthy.

My dad kicked and thumped his way through high school, never being the smartest or best but he graduated. He met my mom, who herself didn't came from a poorer family.

My dad worked his ass off and was eventually able to get his engineering degree and become one of the foremost authorities in his field. Later, he bought his own company. He became one of the richest men in the area.

He was also lucky to have been given opportunities that came from government programs that do not exist today.

So, while in the past it was very possible through hard work and government help to "pull oneself up", it is next to impossible today.

Why is that? Because the programs that existed and helped my father no longer exist or are underfunded but programs that help the rich get wealthier became the norm. The jobs left and where you could go to college and work and get a degree in the field with that combination as my dad did, doesn't exist. Now, you have to go to college and get yourself heavily into debt hoping when you get out you find a job in your field that will pay you enough to pay the loans back and live on.

America once prided itself on being the land of opportunity... is today the land of fighting just to keep what little you have or IF you are lucky and in that top 5% getting as much as you can and not giving a damn about the people losing everything.

And I'd say that's absolutely not an accident.

nice tap dance. the images are indeed as worthless, but what about the opinions of those sporting them?

Seriously? I have to spell it out for you? When you go around with images of Obama as messiah, or Bush as vampire biting the statue of liberty, it makes you look like a juvenile idiot incapable of mature discourse and undermines your message. Would you like me to draw charts too? This is getting positively ridiculous.

And I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

I also do not think it is an accident that the partisans are so extreme and tearing this country apart. Keep people mad at the government and not the people truly controlling everything.

It would be easier to say that the wingnuts are not representative of the Republican Party as a whole (which they aren't) if Republicans weren't so obviously willing to accept any homophobe, racist, sexist, or terrorist into their camp, as long as the homophobe, racist, sexist or terrorist is opposed to Obama and his policies.

It's easy to peg the repubs with the homophobe/racist/sexist/terrorist labels because those beliefs are inherently against the idea of equality that tends to sit firmly in the liberal camp. *shrug*

repubs have sole claim to that segment of society, if that doesn't make them question their values, I don't know what will.

I do. They'll question their values as soon as their owners/funders/sponsors/any other name for owners -- tell them to.

Have to love the self righteous lefties on this board, so what you are saying is that the Democs dont follow their handlers?

How about them turning out in droves to re-elect Marion Barry to a seat in DC, after his conviction on crack smoking?

I would be willing to say the left has just as many sheep, following the hearders around as the right does.

Democrats, much like Republicans, favor only the kinds of equality that will get them votes.

reconmike: In your effort to find new ways to criticize "lefties," you've apparently failed to read the posts on this site very clearly. WinchesterAA has been here lobbing such criticism on both sides - he's more conspiracy theorist than liberal or conservative.

I've come to realize the political circus is all bullshit on both sides of the fence. I personally wish the moderates would get together and get down to business while sending the outer fringe nut jobs on BOTH sides to a 'meeting' involving numerous starving lions and no escape routes. Our current political climate is one of the main reasons I've stopped identifying with either party.

I don't really care for the point at which the health care reform started but it had to start somewhere and it needs to continue. Stop all the senseless bickering and start working toward some of the other points people wanted to see (tort reform/interstate insurance offerings/etc.). Bridge the gap and I think you'll see people calm down and stop throwing bricks through windows.

no. no charts necessary. I just wanted to know if you were going to be consistent.

Considering this bill is in many ways identical to the republican proposals of the 90s and the proposals that Romney ran on in 08, I'd say it is pretty moderate. In fact, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the opposition to this bill comes from the left who thinks this doesn't go far enough.

You know, I'm not all that interested in consistency at this point.

The following is my view. I'm clear it's an opinion, and I'm clear there are other opinions out there.

In my opinion, the last administration was eight years of the worst thing that could possibly happen to America. Our last president so profoundly fucked shit up, it's hard for those of us at street level to even really get our heads around it. To whatever small degree we DID get our heads around it, some were outraged, and spoke.

Now we have someone in office who's actually trying to mend that damage, and put through an agenda that takes care of average Americans. And he's facing a pissed off right wing that feels like their guy was called out for the last eight years (although he was actually pretty untouchable for the first several of those, and those speaking out were consistently marginalized and ignored by the "liberal media"), and now want to hit back in kind or worse. So you get tea party protesters who are protesting to protest, who don't know anything about the thing they're protesting except that a talking head on their favorite "news" channel told them it's bad. And it's justified because it's no worse than what "they" did to "our guy".

For it to be consistent, people would have had to be as outraged about the supreme court appointing Bush in the first place, the USA Patriot Act, allowing New Orleans to drown, an illegal and immoral war against a country that couldn't hurt us that has cost $600 billion so far, $10 billion in cash vanishing in Iraq, sweetheart deals for Haliburton and energy companies, etc, etc, etc., as they are about a bill that attempts to make sure every American gets to see a doctor.

I mean... Doesn't the outrage from the right seem a LITTLE suspect, given all this stuff that they COULD have been outraged about? Doesn't the timing seem a little bit, well, convenient? It's like, now that our guy is out, we're mad, and it looks best to be mad about everything government does, except that we were quiet little doormice while our guy was doing the worst raping of our precious "god damned piece of paper" that has ever been done by a president in the history of our nation. But no, let's make damn sure Americans keep paying the most and getting the least in terms of health care. That makes really good sense.

EDIT: To be entirely fair, dk, I know you were as outraged about some of Bush's atrocities as anyone. The above isn't specifically addressed at you.

well said

The following is MY opinion and response to yours Rat....

I did speak out. And he was by far the worst to that point.

I think the man in office now has far too many issues and in all honesty, I think he's just as corrupt as Bush. I think he surrounded himself with people that only care about power and he's in his own way just another W.

As for "tea partiers" not all of us who believe in the principle of the idea, are "righties" or controlled by "right winged talking heads or media". Some of us have just had it and see that Obama and the Dems in power now are no different than what we had with W.


OR maybe people expected "change" and a government that listened, because those were the campaign promises and they found that there was no "change" in how business was done. Different party, same game.


I was just as outraged at these as I was the medical bill. And you can check my posting history on that. I was NEVER a Bush fan.

I find it funny that people can be outraged by what Bush did and yet, find no faults with what Obama is doing.

That's partisan hypocrisy.

In the end it has all come down to partisan politics and hate mongering. Dems are being blind to what Obama is doing and not speaking out with "outrage" to the things they KNOW are bad for this country and will haunt us in the future. They just don't care, because "it's better than Bush" and "he's doing the best he can with what was left him". EXCUSES. The man is not a good leader and the Dems wish to believe he is a "Great leader".

A great leader would find ways to bring the country together, not deepen the division, which is what he is doing.

I still maintain W was the beginning of the "Barrack Room" Emporers, Obama is just following the same path but under a different guise. BOTH in my view are equally as bad for this country. But for someone so far left Clinton was a "moderate", there is no Obama problem.

Pan, you keep going back to this "power" thing. In your mind, what does gaining/maintaining "power" accomplish for those in question? How are they benefiting from said "power"?

Clinton was against gay rights, pro gun, pro death penalty.

That seems moderate at best.

in reality, clinton was a moderate.
he came out of the democratic leadership conference.
his central political strategy was "triangulation" and its architect was dick morris. triangulation consisted of the moderate clinton administration co-opting moderate republican issues.
the administration pursued this strategy relentlessly, and it explains in alot of ways what started the populist right heading into the outer reaches of the right to stake out an identity for itself.

this is all a matter of record.
what's stunning is that so many folk who position themselves amongst the teabaggers can't detach themselves from the manufactured pseudo-history of the 1990s enough to remember what the fuck actually happened.

i mean, clinton was a monetarist---morethan any republican president. his was the first administration since the collective delirium of "supply-side" economics hit to actually implement a fiscal regime consistent with it--you know, balanced budgets and all that stuff which the bush administration vaporized almost immediately. republicans before and after have all been straight up keynesians---they just favored republican friendly sectors to pump state money into like the military.

i think ratbastid's post above states what i would expect to be the obvious to anyone who looks.

I think this is an interesting commentary as an indirect extension to ratbastid's post above and some of the comments elsewhere in this thread:

The frightening face of American fascism | rabble.ca

To me the concern here isn't that Republicans are against the bill, or Obama in general; it's how they deal with it. My concern is what they do, not why.

Is this blog entry an overreaction? Is Sara Robinson's concern in "Fascist America: Are we there yet?" largely unfounded?

Although there can be some things said regarding the parallel between liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans) in reaction to presidents and politics. But I'm not sure the overall reaction amongst the public is entirely equal.

Am I wrong?

Many don't even seem to know the difference between or the actual core ideals of leftism vs. centrism. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that America is overall fairly strongly conservative and right-wing. So this means that any move toward the middle or any strong social program is going to have a strong reaction.

Again, am I wrong?

How was Clinton any of those things? Why, because he didn't change them enough? He was left-centrist and was willing to listen to the other side, but he was liberal in many aspects also.

I found Clinton socially liberal and to a degree the best president in my lifetime. The ONLY problem with Clinton was the GOP did all they could to destroy him and made it impossible for him to get anything done. But as a LEADER he was damned good, he inspired and kept a positive tone in most of his time. He could have gone back and tried to attack the GOP (Gingrich was having his own affairs) but he didn't. He did what he could and he IMHO did the best job possible.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

I disagree. It is only obvious to those with Obama blinders on. I stand by my statement that W was the first true Barrack Room Emporer and Obama is taking it further.

You can't have a nation going one way and slam on the brakes and go in a completely different direction and expect the masses to be ok with that. It just doesn't happen. Takes time and compromise and I don't see that from Obama.

In my mind he is every bit as bad if not worse than W. He just is doing it in a different way, but the results are the same.

I won't comment on the healthcare bit, but calling President Clinton "pro gun" is a little ignorant.

you beat me to it. I guess people forgot about the assault weapons ban.