About Us

Hawke[_3_]

On 6/14/2011 7:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Shall not be infringed
wrote:

Far left-winger.
Eugene Robinson: Is Obama's race the reason he's faced so much invective?
Published Tuesday, Nov. 02, 2010

The first African American president takes office, and almost immediately
we see the birth of a big, passionate national movement – overwhelmingly
white and lavishly funded – that tries its best to delegitimize that
president, seeks to thwart his every initiative, and brings the
discredited and moribund opposition party roaring back to life.
Coincidence?

Not a chance. But also not that simple.

First, I'll state the obvious: It's not racist to criticize President
Barack Obama, it's not racist to have conservative views, and it's not
racist to join the tea party. But there's something about the nature and
tone of the most vitriolic attacks on the president that I believe is
distinctive – and difficult to explain without asking whether race is
playing a role.

One thing that struck me from the beginning about the tea party rhetoric
is the idea of reclaiming something that has been taken away.

At a recent campaign rally in Paducah, Ky., Senate candidate Rand Paul, a
darling of the tea party movement, drew thunderous applause when he said
that if Republicans win, "we get to go to Washington and take back our
government."

Take it back from whom? Maybe he thinks it goes without saying, because
he didn't say.

On Sunday, in a last-minute fundraising appeal, Republican presidential
hopeful Mike Huckabee implored his supporters to help "return American
government to the American people."

Again, who's in possession of the government right now, if not the
American people? The non-American people? The un-American people?

There's an obvious answer, but it's one that generally comes from the
progressive end of the political spectrum: Americans must fight to take
back their government from the lobbyists and big-money special interests
that shape our laws to suit their own interests, not for the good of the
nation.

That may be what some tea partiers have in mind, but the movement hasn't
seen fit to make campaign finance reform one of its major issues. And the
establishment Republicans who are surfing the tea party wave – while at
the same time scheming to co-opt the movement – would view the idea of
taking money out of politics with horror, if they thought it might
actually happen.

So who stole the government? What makes some people feel more
disenfranchised now than they were, say, during the presidency of George
W. Bush?

After all, it was Bush who inherited a budget surplus and left behind a
suffocating deficit – I'm not being tendentious, just stating the facts.
It was Bush who launched two wars without making any provision in the
budget to pay for them, who proposed and won an expensive new
prescription-drug entitlement without paying for it, who bailed out
irresponsible Wall Street firms with the $700 billion TARP program.

Bush was vilified by critics while he was in office, but not with the
suggestion that somehow the government had been seized or usurped – that
it had fallen into hands that were not those of "the American people."
Yet this is the tea party suggestion about Obama.

Underlying all the tea party's issues and complaints, it appears to me,
is the entirely legitimate issue of the relationship between the
individual and the federal government. But why would this concern about
oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now? Why didn't, say,
government surveillance of domestic phone calls and e-mails get the
constitutional fundamentalists all worked up?

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all
this tea party ire. I wonder how he can be seen as "elitist," when he
grew up in modest circumstances – his mother was on food stamps for a
time – and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans. I
wonder how people who genuinely cherish the American dream

It's because people on the right think they own the country. They think
they are superior to everyone else. And they think they're entitled to
have things their way. So when their right wing government (the Bush
Administration) got its ass kicked and the majority voted in a liberal
government, the right wingers thought they had been wronged. I mean,
someone took the government and the deciding process away from them and
gave it to people they hate, liberals. But what really bugs them the
most is losing to a black man. What an insult! Losing was bad enough.
but to a black man! They'll never get over that.

So now they are whining, crying, and doing everything they possibly can
to get another right wing government back in power, one that does things
the way they want them done. But they're also not just bad losers,
they're the worst losers you will ever meet. Even when you beat them
fair and square they won't accept it like men. Instead, they plot and
plan how to get power, and they have no ethics when it comes to getting
their power back. They will say or do anything. Like they have done
since day one of Obama's presidency.

That is what you are seeing. The sore losers are not a loyal opposition
party. They are traitors and are doing whatever they can think of to
sink the country because they think that will help them gain power.
That's the kind of folks you're dealing with. As experience shows, the
only way to deal with them is to crush them. They don't compromise and
they have no respect for any view but their own. So you defeat them like
we did in 2008 and like we're going to do again in 2012.

Because as much as they would like it to be true, they're not the
majority of Americans. They are a nasty, ****ed off, disgruntled,
minority that has gotten their way far too many times. Which is why they
are so ****ed now. Even though they messed things up royally last time
they had power, they still think they deserve it. Such is the extent of
their sense of entitlement. But as we all saw with Bush, they're really
compeletely incompetent and worse they're extremely corrupt. So the only
thing you can do is beat them. Just like you do to every sore loser you
meet.

Hawke

Too_Many_Tools

On Jun 15, 2:10*am, Hawke wrote:
On 6/14/2011 7:08 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Shall not be infringed
*wrote:

Far left-winger.
Eugene Robinson: Is Obama's race the reason he's faced so much invective?
Published Tuesday, Nov. 02, 2010

The first African American president takes office, and almost immediately
we see the birth of a big, passionate national movement – overwhelmingly
white and lavishly funded – that tries its best to delegitimize that
president, seeks to thwart his every initiative, and brings the
discredited and moribund opposition party roaring back to life.
Coincidence?

Not a chance. But also not that simple.

First, I'll state the obvious: It's not racist to criticize President
Barack Obama, it's not racist to have conservative views, and it's not
racist to join the tea party. But there's something about the nature and
tone of the most vitriolic attacks on the president that I believe is
distinctive – and difficult to explain without asking whether race is
playing a role.

One thing that struck me from the beginning about the tea party rhetoric
is the idea of reclaiming something that has been taken away.

At a recent campaign rally in Paducah, Ky., Senate candidate Rand Paul, a
darling of the tea party movement, drew thunderous applause when he said
that if Republicans win, "we get to go to Washington and take back our
government."

Take it back from whom? Maybe he thinks it goes without saying, because
he didn't say.

On Sunday, in a last-minute fundraising appeal, Republican presidential
hopeful Mike Huckabee implored his supporters to help "return American
government to the American people."

Again, who's in possession of the government right now, if not the
American people? The non-American people? The un-American people?

There's an obvious answer, but it's one that generally comes from the
progressive end of the political spectrum: Americans must fight to take
back their government from the lobbyists and big-money special interests
that shape our laws to suit their own interests, not for the good of the
nation.

That may be what some tea partiers have in mind, but the movement hasn't
seen fit to make campaign finance reform one of its major issues. And the
establishment Republicans who are surfing the tea party wave – while at
the same time scheming to co-opt the movement – would view the idea of
taking money out of politics with horror, if they thought it might
actually happen.

So who stole the government? What makes some people feel more
disenfranchised now than they were, say, during the presidency of George
W. Bush?

After all, it was Bush who inherited a budget surplus and left behind a
suffocating deficit – I'm not being tendentious, just stating the facts.
It was Bush who launched two wars without making any provision in the
budget to pay for them, who proposed and won an expensive new
prescription-drug entitlement without paying for it, who bailed out
irresponsible Wall Street firms with the $700 billion TARP program.

Bush was vilified by critics while he was in office, but not with the
suggestion that somehow the government had been seized or usurped – that
it had fallen into hands that were not those of "the American people."
Yet this is the tea party suggestion about Obama.

Underlying all the tea party's issues and complaints, it appears to me,
is the entirely legitimate issue of the relationship between the
individual and the federal government. But why would this concern about
oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now? Why didn't, say,
government surveillance of domestic phone calls and e-mails get the
constitutional fundamentalists all worked up?

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all
this tea party ire. I wonder how he can be seen as "elitist," when he
grew up in modest circumstances – his mother was on food stamps for a
time – and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans. I
wonder how people who genuinely cherish the American dream

It's because people on the right think they own the country. They think
they are superior to everyone else. And they think they're entitled to
have things their way. So when their right wing government (the Bush
Administration) got its ass kicked and the majority voted in a liberal
government, the right wingers thought they had been wronged. I mean,
someone took the government and the deciding process away from them and
gave it to people they hate, liberals. But what really bugs them the
most is losing to a black man. What an insult! Losing was bad enough.
but to a black man! They'll never get over that.

So now they are whining, crying, and doing everything they possibly can
to get another right wing government back in power, one that does things
the way they want them done. But they're also not just bad losers,
they're the worst losers you will ever meet. Even when you beat them
fair and square they won't accept it like men. Instead, they plot and
plan how to get power, and they have no ethics when it comes to getting
their power back. They will say or do anything. Like they have done
since day one of Obama's presidency.

That is what you are seeing. The sore losers are not a loyal opposition
party. They are traitors and are doing whatever they can think of to
sink the country because they think that will help them gain power.
That's the kind of folks you're dealing with. As experience shows, the
only way to deal with them is to crush them. They don't compromise and
they have no respect for any view but their own. So you defeat them like
we did in 2008 and like we're going to do again in 2012.

Because as much as they would like it to be true, they're not the
majority of Americans. They are a nasty, ****ed off, disgruntled,
minority that has gotten their way far too many times. Which is why they
are so ****ed now. Even though they messed things up royally last time
they had power, they still think they deserve it. Such is the extent of
their sense of entitlement. But as we all saw with Bush, they're really
compeletely incompetent and worse they're extremely corrupt. So the only
thing you can do is beat them. Just like you do to every sore loser you
meet.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said Hawke.

And true.

TMT

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OT - Why don't the Republicans save the Country money and declareObama the winner now?	Hawke[_3_]	Metalworking	2	June 19th 11 12:12 AM
Save Money	Dr. Smith	Home Ownership	17	September 28th 09 07:17 PM
Save Money?!?	bobbysmith	Home Repair	0	May 20th 05 12:10 PM

Menu

About Us