OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I came across this little gem from Joe Klein over at Time: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/yes-its-racism-but-its-complicated/

In essence, Klein argues that, by and large, the protesters are indeed racist, but not solely based on Obama’s color. Rather, they (and the “they” in this case are high school educated Middle Americans of a certain race and type) are worried about “furriners” (Klein’s word, not mine) and thus are out protesting. The “furriners” that we’re all afraid of, apparently, run the gamut from Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals and, of course, educated, “uppity” (again, Klein’s word) blacks.

So, in one fell swoop, Klein addresses: Obama as representative of “the other”, the ignorance and lack of upper education of the protesters (implying that we’d all be so better able to understand Obama’ brilliance if we were all possessed of a secondary education), and the inherent racism/bigotry of ANY and ALL opposition to the President and his policies.

You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters and opines vacuously about American “weakness” as a function of the Bush presidency. One only has to look to today’s news of Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense shield and Putin’s evident glee to see American weakness.

Nope, what we’re treated to these days from the American Left, the MSM and the indoctrinated like Brian and Pat, is the product of a co-opted educational system, the death and dearth of critical thinking and analysis and the purblindness that comes from a misplaced sense of one’s superiority over those that dissent or disagree. It’s funny, but the very people that are accusing others of acting like Nazis are in fact behaving more like them.

“Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.[/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

I agree not all the protesters are wingnuts. My fiance’s best friend was a huge contributor to tea parties over two years ago.

i don’t like the words “all” and “every” when describing groups of people, because that is discrimination even if its describing tea partiers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl][/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

[/quote]

Good morning, Sdgrrl. Once you realize I’m always right, you’ll stop disagreeing with me. Kidding. I think.

I’ll read that Bloomberg article this morning, but I do want to point out that Obama’s abandonment of the missile program won’t likely be replaced with something else. Why? Because its a sop to the Russians. The Kremlin (and, God it chills me to use that term) made it abundantly clear that the missile defense system would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent capability and had to go. And go it did, immediately followed by a Russian communique stating that this policy was in line with the new US/Russian stance on Eastern Europe. Ask the Poles or Czechs how they feel about this.

From a Times UK article: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence,” said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. “It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”

From Russia to Latin America to Iran, Obama is mistaking appeasement for diplomacy. This is going to cost us dearly over the long run. Neville Chamberlain was a very capable diplomat and there is a wonderful picture of a beaming Chamberlain deplaning from Munich in 1938 proclaiming “peace in our time”. We all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl][/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

[/quote]

Good morning, Sdgrrl. Once you realize I’m always right, you’ll stop disagreeing with me. Kidding. I think.

I’ll read that Bloomberg article this morning, but I do want to point out that Obama’s abandonment of the missile program won’t likely be replaced with something else. Why? Because its a sop to the Russians. The Kremlin (and, God it chills me to use that term) made it abundantly clear that the missile defense system would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent capability and had to go. And go it did, immediately followed by a Russian communique stating that this policy was in line with the new US/Russian stance on Eastern Europe. Ask the Poles or Czechs how they feel about this.

From a Times UK article: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence,” said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. “It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”

From Russia to Latin America to Iran, Obama is mistaking appeasement for diplomacy. This is going to cost us dearly over the long run. Neville Chamberlain was a very capable diplomat and there is a wonderful picture of a beaming Chamberlain deplaning from Munich in 1938 proclaiming “peace in our time”. We all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl][/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

[/quote]

Good morning, Sdgrrl. Once you realize I’m always right, you’ll stop disagreeing with me. Kidding. I think.

I’ll read that Bloomberg article this morning, but I do want to point out that Obama’s abandonment of the missile program won’t likely be replaced with something else. Why? Because its a sop to the Russians. The Kremlin (and, God it chills me to use that term) made it abundantly clear that the missile defense system would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent capability and had to go. And go it did, immediately followed by a Russian communique stating that this policy was in line with the new US/Russian stance on Eastern Europe. Ask the Poles or Czechs how they feel about this.

From a Times UK article: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence,” said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. “It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”

From Russia to Latin America to Iran, Obama is mistaking appeasement for diplomacy. This is going to cost us dearly over the long run. Neville Chamberlain was a very capable diplomat and there is a wonderful picture of a beaming Chamberlain deplaning from Munich in 1938 proclaiming “peace in our time”. We all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl][/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

[/quote]

Good morning, Sdgrrl. Once you realize I’m always right, you’ll stop disagreeing with me. Kidding. I think.

I’ll read that Bloomberg article this morning, but I do want to point out that Obama’s abandonment of the missile program won’t likely be replaced with something else. Why? Because its a sop to the Russians. The Kremlin (and, God it chills me to use that term) made it abundantly clear that the missile defense system would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent capability and had to go. And go it did, immediately followed by a Russian communique stating that this policy was in line with the new US/Russian stance on Eastern Europe. Ask the Poles or Czechs how they feel about this.

From a Times UK article: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence,” said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. “It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”

From Russia to Latin America to Iran, Obama is mistaking appeasement for diplomacy. This is going to cost us dearly over the long run. Neville Chamberlain was a very capable diplomat and there is a wonderful picture of a beaming Chamberlain deplaning from Munich in 1938 proclaiming “peace in our time”. We all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl][/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

[/quote]

Good morning, Sdgrrl. Once you realize I’m always right, you’ll stop disagreeing with me. Kidding. I think.

I’ll read that Bloomberg article this morning, but I do want to point out that Obama’s abandonment of the missile program won’t likely be replaced with something else. Why? Because its a sop to the Russians. The Kremlin (and, God it chills me to use that term) made it abundantly clear that the missile defense system would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent capability and had to go. And go it did, immediately followed by a Russian communique stating that this policy was in line with the new US/Russian stance on Eastern Europe. Ask the Poles or Czechs how they feel about this.

From a Times UK article: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence,” said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. “It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”

From Russia to Latin America to Iran, Obama is mistaking appeasement for diplomacy. This is going to cost us dearly over the long run. Neville Chamberlain was a very capable diplomat and there is a wonderful picture of a beaming Chamberlain deplaning from Munich in 1938 proclaiming “peace in our time”. We all know how that turned out.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[Author]

Posts