What is driving the GOP's Anti-Obama hysteria?

[Orignal Earl]

Nah, we should lock them up and throw away the key. It's the humanitarian, I mean, civilized thing to do. Nothing says civilized like letting someone rot away in a cell. 🙄

Well, if your ever in that spot, I'm sure you will do the right thing.
But I would bet most by far will take the life in prison route

 

[Atreus21]

However, going to another people and expecting them to hold the same values as us would be just silly.

Expecting another nation of humans to, at the very least, value human lives above a book is hardly silly.

Imagine if there were an occupying force in the US from another culture, and they tore down the statue of liberty because "it was old, rusty, and a safety hazard". From their perspective, they're just getting rid of an old structure. From ours, they would be destroying a symbol of our most sacred value. There would almost certainly be riots. (I can also guarantee that any occupying force in the US would be met with an incredibly nasty guerrilla insurgency, at least as bloody as what we're seeing in Afghanistan.)

So yes, he was right to apologize. Burning Korans shows an incredible lack of respect for their culture, and makes clear to them that we have no business deciding what is right for them. Yes, the fact that they killed is completely unacceptable and unforgivable, but debates over the retaliation to the offense are separate from discussion of the offense itself. We can't argue that we were in the right burning those Korans, regardless of the severity of their reaction.

The sheer effort of some people to rationalize against the blatantly obvious is staggering.

To what extent does a civilized society go to prove to barbarians that it is civilized? We, in a foreign land, accidentally step on someone's foot, which according to the laws of this culture is commensurate with stabbing someone in the eye. In retaliation, they kill 10 people, as this is customary. We apologize for stepping on that person's foot. That's acceptable to you?

 

[HumblePie]

Let's see if my memory serves me correctly.

First off, the term Left and Right came from olden monarch days. Some state it mainly manifested during the French revolution, but who knows for sure. The basic premise to the original definition is this. The king had a set of consulars he used to help him rule his country. He stacked on his tables those with a conservative ideology to his right, and those with a liberal ideology to his left.

The conservatives basically like minimal change to the way government ran anything. Be it good or bad, the conservatives found nothing inherently wrong with the system as a whole and only small tweaks should ever be made.

The liberals liked to change things if they thought it would make things better. That doesn't mean increase in government, but just change. Maybe a tweak to the tax code here or there. Basically any government ruling function that they thought required change they wanted to implement.


That's the basics of the origins of the two parties. One for change, and one for staying the same.

However, there are certain groups that typically favor one form of government style over another for various reasons. You'll also find that those on the Left can shift quickly to the Right once their changes they wanted are made and done. For example, if the current government had very little in the way of civil liberties for certain classes of people, then the politician that would speak for government changes to bring about more civil liberties for those would be considered on the Left. However, if those changes were implemented, if the politician was happy and wanted nothing else changed in the government then he/she would shift to the Right. Vice versa as well.

Left = wanting to change something
Right = wanting to change nothing


This bullshit Texashiker is posting about communism, anarchy, fascists, socialists, centrists, and blah blah blah are different political parties that either had right or left leaning ideas based upon the current government.

Communism for example would be VERY left leaning in the USA because it would be a MASSIVE change to the current setup. That doesn't mean every "left" leaning person would be wanting to implement communism. That's stupid to make that equation. Now in a country like China, the communism part would NOT be the Left wing side. It would be the ultra Right wing side. Why? Cause China does not want to change it's current government structure based upon communism.

People forget the basics. It's simple as the equation I put above.


So where do "central" people fall if left means change, and right means no change? In reality there is no on truly central. They may like less change than the far Left, and no change on some government issues. Usually they are the ones that like compromises in terms of changes. Maybe something that someone on the far left things of as a HUGE change needed to be done, the centralist will think only a compromised small change is needed instead.

 

[Infohawk]

Is there any point to characterizing opposition to Obama as hysteria? Democrats were angry about Bush when he was in power. The partisans on both sides don't like the other ones. It hasn't really changed in a long time, at least going back to the start of the culture wars. Nothing new here.

 

[soulcougher73]

Wow. The denial and delusion is strong in this thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Let's see if my memory serves me correctly.

First off, the term Left and Right came from olden monarch days. Some state it mainly manifested during the French revolution, but who knows for sure. The basic premise to the original definition is this. The king had a set of consulars he used to help him rule his country. He stacked on his tables those with a conservative ideology to his right, and those with a liberal ideology to his left.

The conservatives basically like minimal change to the way government ran anything. Be it good or bad, the conservatives found nothing inherently wrong with the system as a whole and only small tweaks should ever be made.

The liberals liked to change things if they thought it would make things better. That doesn't mean increase in government, but just change. Maybe a tweak to the tax code here or there. Basically any government ruling function that they thought required change they wanted to implement.


That's the basics of the origins of the two parties. One for change, and one for staying the same.

However, there are certain groups that typically favor one form of government style over another for various reasons. You'll also find that those on the Left can shift quickly to the Right once their changes they wanted are made and done. For example, if the current government had very little in the way of civil liberties for certain classes of people, then the politician that would speak for government changes to bring about more civil liberties for those would be considered on the Left. However, if those changes were implemented, if the politician was happy and wanted nothing else changed in the government then he/she would shift to the Right. Vice versa as well.

Left = wanting to change something
Right = wanting to change nothing


This bullshit Texashiker is posting about communism, anarchy, fascists, socialists, centrists, and blah blah blah are different political parties that either had right or left leaning ideas based upon the current government.

Communism for example would be VERY left leaning in the USA because it would be a MASSIVE change to the current setup. That doesn't mean every "left" leaning person would be wanting to implement communism. That's stupid to make that equation. Now in a country like China, the communism part would NOT be the Left wing side. It would be the ultra Right wing side. Why? Cause China does not want to change it's current government structure based upon communism.

People forget the basics. It's simple as the equation I put above.


So where do "central" people fall if left means change, and right means no change? In reality there is no on truly central. They may like less change than the far Left, and no change on some government issues. Usually they are the ones that like compromises in terms of changes. Maybe something that someone on the far left things of as a HUGE change needed to be done, the centralist will think only a compromised small change is needed instead.

I want to see LOTS of change...yikes, I must be a liberal! :biggrin:

 

[HumblePie]

I want to see LOTS of change...yikes, I must be a liberal! :biggrin:

I didn't say anything about liberal or anything else as a political ideology. I stated with LEFT and RIGHT meant in terms of the political spectrum. Liberalism almost strictly deals with civil liberties. Those wanting more civil liberties for all are liberals. If implementing those liberties is quite a bit of change to the current government structure, then it is a LEFT side view at the time. If not, then it's a RIGHT side.

During the civil liberties movement int he 50's, those espousing liberalism were most certainly the left side of the political spectrum. They wanted the government to change to add equality regardless of gender and skin color. They wanted civil liberties that were not protected or provided by the government. As such, they wanted a whole bunch of changes at the time. Thus Left side. There are some civil liberties that liberals want to see implemented that currently are not, which is why they are still considered left leaning. But the vast majority of equality issues have been implemented through government reform. Thus they are not as far to the Left as they once were if only viewing the liberalists in terms of civil liberties changes to government.

 

[Fern]

Every one thinks Obama is being treated worse than Bush?

Yeah.

Same Ole Shiz.

While politics has always been crazy, it seemed to go full-out retard about the time of the Clinton admin (and starting then we've seemed to have a had a whole lot more lawyers involved, and actually being President). Hasn't slowed down a bit either.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Is there any point to characterizing opposition to Obama as hysteria? Democrats were angry about Bush when he was in power. The partisans on both sides don't like the other ones. It hasn't really changed in a long time, at least going back to the start of the culture wars. Nothing new here.

False equivalency.

 

[BoberFett]

No, I am saying that when both parties and everyone in the country support it, it transcends a side.

No, what you are saying is that Social Security and Medicare are not leftist concepts because they're supported by "the right" when in fact it means that things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be, and that this country does in fact do many things that are "left" despite your claim that we are some far right nation.

In other words, you're wrong.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I didn't say anything about liberal or anything else as a political ideology. I stated with LEFT and RIGHT meant in terms of the political spectrum. Liberalism almost strictly deals with civil liberties. Those wanting more civil liberties for all are liberals. If implementing those liberties is quite a bit of change to the current government structure, then it is a LEFT side view at the time. If not, then it's a RIGHT side.

During the civil liberties movement int he 50's, those espousing liberalism were most certainly the left side of the political spectrum. They wanted the government to change to add equality regardless of gender and skin color. They wanted civil liberties that were not protected or provided by the government. As such, they wanted a whole bunch of changes at the time. Thus Left side. There are some civil liberties that liberals want to see implemented that currently are not, which is why they are still considered left leaning. But the vast majority of equality issues have been implemented through government reform. Thus they are all that Left as they once were.

That's odd.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

 

[HumblePie]

That's odd.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

Again, LEFT and RIGHT... Not DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN.

Democrats typically are Left leaning because most politicians in the democrat party want to bring some change to the current government. Repubs are considered Right because they don't want change or changes that are as minor as can be. That doesn't mean the Republican party is strictly a Right side party. Nor that Democrats are strictly a left side party.

Are you trying to be obtuse on purpose?

 

[shadow9d9]

No, what you are saying is that Social Security and Medicare are not leftist concepts because they're supported by "the right" when in fact it means that things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be, and that this country does in fact do many things that are "left" despite your claim that we are some far right nation.

In other words, you're wrong.

If things aren't black and white, then you should have no problem accepting that you are wrong that SS and Medicare are "leftist."

Repeating that the other person is wrong doesn't make it a fact.. just that you are desperate.

 

[shadow9d9]

That's odd.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

I love how people seem to think that if something happened in the past, it changes the present.

How many republican state governors or legislature or members of Congress have passed or allowed passage of gay marriage, which is a civil right?

 

[fskimospy]

That's odd.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

A few things. First and foremost, your assertions about the Civil Rights act are hilariously false. In the Senate, votes by the Democratic party were 46 for, 21 against. 70% in favor of passage. They contributed 63% of the votes necessary for passage. In the House, the vote inside the Democratic Party was 153-91, with 63% of Democrats voting in favor, and them supplying a bit less than 55% of the total votes needed for passage.

Since about 65% of the total Democrats in Congress voted in favor of it, to say that 70% of the Democrats in the House and Senate opposed its passage would be close to the exact opposite of reality. Furthermore, to say that 'Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act' would mean that you were crediting the party that supplied considerably less than half the votes in Congress as opposed to the party that supplied the voting majority and the Presidential signature. This is bizarre to say the least.

On top of that, you are attempting to ignore the regional aspects of that vote as so many people do on here. All glaring factual errors aside, that's extremely dishonest.

 

[woolfe9999]

A few things. First and foremost, your assertions about the Civil Rights act are hilariously false. In the Senate, votes by the Democratic party were 46 for, 21 against. 70% in favor of passage. They contributed 63% of the votes necessary for passage. In the House, the vote inside the Democratic Party was 153-91, with 63% of Democrats voting in favor, and them supplying a bit less than 55% of the total votes needed for passage.

Since about 65% of the total Democrats in Congress voted in favor of it, to say that 70% of the Democrats in the House and Senate opposed its passage would be close to the exact opposite of reality. Furthermore, to say that 'Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act' would mean that you were crediting the party that supplied considerably less than half the votes in Congress as opposed to the party that supplied the voting majority and the Presidential signature. This is bizarre to say the least.

On top of that, you are attempting to ignore the regional aspects of that vote as so many people do on here. All glaring factual errors aside, that's extremely dishonest.

To add some data to your point regarding regional differences:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Two points bear mentioning here: out of 11 southern republicans, 0 voted in favor of the bill. Second point should be even more obvious: which party currently represents the bulk of the American south today?

 

[hal2kilo]

That's odd.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

Do we need to continually go back and have a history lesson about Dixiecrats and the Republican southern strategy. After the Civil Right Act of 1964, the republican party successfully went after the white vote in the south.

 

[fskimospy]

To add some data to your point regarding regional differences:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Two points bear mentioning here: out of 11 southern republicans, 0 voted in favor of the bill. Second point should be even more obvious: which party currently represents the bulk of the American south today?

It never ceases to amaze me that people would look at those vote totals and say 'the Democrats were the problem' instead of saying 'the South was the problem'. It doesn't get much more obvious than that.

 

[shadow9d9]

To add some data to your point regarding regional differences:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Two points bear mentioning here: out of 11 southern republicans, 0 voted in favor of the bill. Second point should be even more obvious: which party currently represents the bulk of the American south today?

TODAY doesn't matter... We can manipulate the interpretations of the past to make it look like conservatives were pro elimination of slavery!

 

[manimal]

Do we need to continually go back and have a history lesson about Dixiecrats and the Republican southern strategy. After the Civil Right Act of 1964, the republican party successfully went after the white vote in the south.

History is revised and things become so simple. Easy to digest if you will.

 

[fskimospy]

TODAY doesn't matter... We can manipulate the interpretations of the past to make it look like conservatives were pro elimination of slavery!

It's part of the mythology of the "TRUE CONSERVATIVE". Anything that's good about conservatism is attributed to it, and anything bad is brushed off as not being a TRULY CONSERVATIVE value.

 

[woolfe9999]

It never ceases to amaze me that people would look at those vote totals and say 'the Democrats were the problem' instead of saying 'the South was the problem'. It doesn't get much more obvious than that.

Right, it isn't like southern republicans (what few there were) favored it either. None in fact did. Connecting the dots would seem like child's play:

Slavery was principally in the south.
Jim Crow laws were principally in the south.
The south opposed integration of public schools.

The democrats represented the south until the 1970's. Now, the republicans do. When you think about it, it's actually quite remarkable that nearly as many dems voted for it as repubs back then, and that it was an initiative of a dem President. That BTW is precisely why the demographics shifted shortly thereafter. This was the GOP's "southern strategy."

In any event, it seems to me that in a discussion about politics, it matters little what a political party was 50 years ago and a lot more what it is today.

- wolf

 

[HumblePie]

Right, it isn't like southern republicans (what few there were) favored it either. None in fact did. Connecting the dots would seem like child's play:

Slavery was principally in the south.
Jim Crow laws were principally in the south.
The south opposed integration of public schools.

The democrats represented the south until the 1970's. Now, the republicans do. When you think about it, it's actually quite remarkable that nearly as many dems voted for it as repubs back then, and that it was an initiative of a dem President. That BTW is precisely why the demographics shifted shortly thereafter. This was the GOP's "southern strategy."

In any event, it seems to me that in a discussion about politics, it matters little what a political party was 50 years ago and a lot more what it is today.

- wolf

Yep, which is why I was trying to provide definition for what certain political terms mean, since people like to muddle and assign meanings as they see fit.

 

[shadow9d9]

Right, it isn't like southern republicans (what few there were) favored it either. None in fact did. Connecting the dots would seem like child's play:

Slavery was principally in the south.
Jim Crow laws were principally in the south.
The south opposed integration of public schools.

The democrats represented the south until the 1970's. Now, the republicans do. When you think about it, it's actually quite remarkable that nearly as many dems voted for it as repubs back then, and that it was an initiative of a dem President. That BTW is precisely why the demographics shifted shortly thereafter. This was the GOP's "southern strategy."

In any event, it seems to me that in a discussion about politics, it matters little what a political party was 50 years ago and a lot more what it is today.

- wolf

We aren't and can't be bigots because 50 years ago republicans weren't!

 

[soulcougher73]

Are you trying to be obtuse on purpose?

It's what he and his kind do.