Many people express views against Obama without being hateful bigots.

Forums: Politics, Obama, Racism, Relationships, Bigotry
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Let's get this straight.

If you disapprove of Obama's policies, fine. If you think the individual mandate or any other part of Obamacare is bad and say so, then great. That is part of a healthy dialog. If you think drone strikes, or his immigration deferred action or anything else is bad then you just are being a productive part of civic discourse in a free society.

If you think Obama is a horrible president and you wouldn't vote for him in a million years, then great. That doesn't make you a racist.

In fact, there are millions of Americans that I strongly disagree with, but respect. They aren't the racists.

However.... there are things that people are saying here and elsewhere that clearly cross the line from civic discourse, to racism and hatred. For example...

Quote:

The concept that he wants to destroy the US is what is scaring the hell out of me. His mindset is so foreign to anything that most people in the US have experienced, that most people cannot even comprehend it.

Quote:

This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.

This whole Obama isn't American thing is really out of line. Just to be clear I am fully behind people's right to say such things. It is free speech. But people who brandish their rights to attacking President Obama for being a foreign manipulator shouldn't whine when they other people call them racists. Free speech cuts both ways.

I also want to point out that there has been very little of this behavior from the left. Romney certainly has a family background that some find strange (it is ironic that Obama is being attacked because his ancestors were polygamist). I don't see anyone going after Romney this way... if if they do, I will be the first to denounce it.

There is a difference between political discourse and racism. You can't express strong disagreements and disapproval without stooping to hateful conspiracy theories and attacks on people's core identities as Americans.

Right now, a number of people from one side of our political divide seem to be having trouble with this distinction.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 4,770 • Replies: 48

@maxdancona,

Max, exaggeration is a humanoid foible and while your reaction is well-meant it will have little impact

0 Replies

As a libertarian, I've seen these kind of attacks coming from both sides.

2 Replies

@jennifermarie618,

Jen do tell us about libertarians--maybe separate thread

1 Reply

@jennifermarie618,

jennifermarie618 wrote:

As a libertarian, I've seen these kind of attacks coming from both sides.

Yep.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

that there has been very little of this behavior from the left.

Max do you think Ann Coulter would agree

I just began reading DEMONIC and literally I'm scared

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Obviously the reason I stated I'm a libertarian is to show I don't have a bias on either side. If I were to say that Democrats show the same behavior without stating my political standpoint all would assume I'm a Conservative Republican. On the other hand if you are serious and would like to know about libertarianism I'd be glad to educate you on our philosophy Smile

3 Replies

@jennifermarie618,

Are you a Ron Paul libertarian, a Paul Ryan libertarian or an Ayn Rand libertarian?

Ayn Rand was pro-abortion rights and anti-religion.
Paul Ryan is pro religion, pro American military intervention and anti-abortion rights.
Ron Paul is pro religion, anti-abortion rights and Anti military intervention.

Of the three I think that Ayn Rand makes the most sense (but that isn't saying very much).

1 Reply

Of the different Democrat offerings, does anyone know where Max falls in line

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Libertarians don't group themselves under one person's viewpoints. I will be voting Gary Johnson this election however. Ron Paul does have many good philosophy's but the fact that he associates himself with the Republican party makes me keept my distance from him. I can say I strongly believe a woman has a choice when it comes to abortion rights and it isn't the governments place to meddle in. I don't really know what you mean by anti-religion. I don't think religion should be incorporated in government (separation of church and state). Afterall, that's a big factor in why our forefathers sought to be liberated from England. I also believe any citizen has the right to practice the religion of their choosing, another premise our country was built on. Mainly I'm a libertarian who believes the government is meant to protect life, liberty, and property and that's where the line is drawn.

1 Reply

anything i've ever said about the current president is only because i happen to like* half-rican american moslem socialists douchebags

depending on the election i also look forward to liking* polygamist magic underwear wearing entitled douchebags

*and by like i of course mean revile,which is the only feeling one should have for a politician

0 Replies

@jennifermarie618,

Interesting, you seem consistent.

Do you support same sex marriage?
Do you think drugs should be legal?
Do you oppose interventionist wars (i.e. Iraq)?

By anti-religion I mean in the sense of Ayn Rand (see quote below). I am not sure this is relevant given the positions your marked out above.

Ayn Rand wrote:

Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very – how should I say it? – dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.
...
Faith is the worst curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Do you support same sex marriage? yes
Do you think drugs should be legal? yes
Do you oppose interventionist wars (i.e. Iraq)? yes

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Same sex-marriage=yes, I don't agree with discrimination in any way shape or form. "Positive" or not. And by positive I mean affirmative action. The government has no right in telling it's citizens who they can and cannot marry. If it isn't hurting concern it should not be of anyone's concern.
Drugs being legal=most definitely. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in American history. Besides the fact that again, the government has no place to meddle in anybody's life if they aren't hurting anyone the legalizatin of drugs would have a positive impact on our economy as well as crime. Obviously the legality of drugs has no effect on whether or not an individual will use. As we can see in the Netherlands the legalization of drugs has produced a lower crime rate as well as a lower percentage of people using. Adding drugs into our market would create a boom in our economy. Also, there would no longer be drug dealers and cartels which means no more crime as a result of these black market dealings. We don't see bootleggers selling Vodka on the street do we? I can go on forever but these are just a few of the most obvious reasons drugs should be legalized.
Intervention wars=depends. If it is to protect our citizens from terrorists and the like most definitely. As I stated the government is there to protect its citizens. Now, when our government is intervening for the supposed "good" of that country then no, not at all. The "help" is almost always unappreciated and I see no reason for our government who's duty is to protect its citizens, to throw it's citizens into the line of fire in an attempt to "Americanize" that country.
(Excuse any typos and a sense of rush, my phone is not the greatest))

2 Replies

@jennifermarie618,

You are logically consistent. I respect that.

The "libertarians" I disdain are the hypocrites with logically inconsistent positions, for example saying they are all about liberty but then wanting government to control who I can marry or what kinds of birth control I can use.

1 Reply

@jennifermarie618,

One more question. What about immigration?

Should the government be able to tell me who I can or can not hire or rent my house to?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

How about satire , parody.... etc.... for example....
I call Obama.. OreO.... and since he took the White House I add the acronym WH-OreO...
As for Mitt, I play on his governorship state... i.e., Massa-two-shits Mitt I also call him Mitt Romneytail.... and I do a parody of the Peter Cottontail lyrics replacing key words.... Flippity- Floppity, in place of Hippity- Hopppity... Anyway, I am very partial to freedomn of speech and expression, especially when it comes to political speech.... maxdancona (there's an Italian city-town with that name)... how do you deal with the possibility of abridging free speech?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Anybody who believes the government has the right to control, well, anything that doesn't involve protecting our life, liberty or property is NOT a libertarian in my book. Most libertarians would disdain anyone with those viewpoints in using the libertarian name. I find it quite odd somebody would have the audacity to believe government needs to control either of those issues you pointed out, yet still call themselves a libertarian.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Again, no the government has no place in telling you *who* you may rent your home to. The protection of property clause simply ends at protection. Unless your home/property is in jeopardy due to the tenant you rent out to, the government does not need to be involved.

0 Replies

My general view of libertarians is that they are smug hypocrites. Governments tax us to, among other things, build roads upon which we drive. I don't know of any libertarians who eschew the use of roads. Governments regulate how we drive--i don't see libertarians ignoring traffic regulations and speed limits as an infringement on their liberties. Libertarians piss and moan about the monetary system and the Federal Reserve, but i don't see them trying to live by a barter system. I am reminded of the time when i was working in a hospital and asked this clown for his insurance card, and he told me his life was not ruled by little bits of paper. An ambulance driver standing nearby barked with laughter and asked him if his employer paid him in gold. Libertarians go down to the grocery store like everyone else where they purchase food which is relatively safe to eat because of government regulation--and, of course, they pay for it with legal tender. Libertarians benefit from all of the government regulation which makes out society relatively safe and healthy, and then spout bullshit about rights and responsibilities and the evil of government control. They're hypocrites of the worst kind.

1 Reply

Many people express views against Obama without being hateful bigots.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know