Obama '08?

Most here who have questions against Obama's policies I don't accuse or think racism is behind it. Nor is everybody in congress or tv or even that guy who wrongly yelled out "you lie" is a racist merely because they disagree with Obama or his policies.

However, there has been a lot of racist comments at unusual level by people who aught to know better too.

The following is collected over the use of google and I don't want to go the trouble of embedding it and cleaning it up as I have some other things today, but just to give an idea that all this talk of racism from the left is not just using the race card for political purposes. I am not even going to go the image of teabaggers and health reform protesters but some various elected officials or past ones or their staff.

A prominent South Carolina Republican killed his Facebook page Sunday after being caught likening the First Lady to an escaped gorilla.
Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/14/2009-06-14_pol_gorilla_is_related_to_first_lady.html

Diann Jones “black house” where Obama is plotting against Americans,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/texas-gop-official-apolog_n_211287.html

Obama Bucks” watermelon-chicken food stamps,
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html

Southern California suburban Republican mayor who sent out the hilarious White House-watermelon garden email,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/25/national/main4827964.shtml

Florida state committee-woman GOP gal who sent out that “So how did black people travel in airplanes to Obama’s inauguration when they couldn’t get out of New Orleans during Katrina?”

http://wonkette.com/406018/hilarious-racist-email-gets-gop-official-fired

the Republican mayor in South Carolina forwarding his “just out of curiosity” musings about the Muslim Barack Obama being maybe a character in the Bible (the Devil, in fact),
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/10/01/latest-biblical-beast-sighting-gop-mayor-says-that-it-remains-unclear-whether-obama-is-the-anti-christ/

In all, the Sun-Star obtained seven e-mails that Frago sent from October 2008 to February 2009 from an anonymous source.
Some compared Obama to O.J. Simpson while others suggested that “nigger rigs” should now be called “presidential solutions.”

Perhaps the most overboard e-mail was sent on Jan. 15. It read: “Breaking News Playboy just offered Sarah Palin $1 million to pose nude in the January issue. Michelle Obama got the same offer from National Geographic.”
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/955392.html

The chairman of Tennessee's Democratic Party wants a Republican legislative aide fired for sending out a "reprehensible" e-mail depicting President Obama as two cartoonish white eyes peering from a black background.

Obama's image is in the last square of a collage containing portraits of the previous 43 U.S. presidents. The e-mail, which was sent to other GOP staff members, was posted on the Internet Monday.
Sherri Goforth, an administrative assistant to state Sen. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, has admitted she sent the e-mail May 28 with the title "Historical Keepsake Photo." She said, without elaborating, that she mistakenly sent it "to the wrong list of people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/tennessee-gop-staffer-ema_n_216085.html

Rex Rammell, a long-shot candidate slated to run against incumbent C.L. "Butch" Otter in the May 2010 GOP primary, made the comment at a Republican rally Tuesday in Twin Falls where talk turned to the state's planned wolf hunt, for which hunters must purchase an $11.50 wolf tag. The hunt is due to begin on Tuesday.
When an audience member shouted a question about "Obama tags," Rammell responded, "The Obama tags? We'd buy some of those."
Rammell told The Associated Press Thursday he sees no reason to apologize for the comment because it was just a joke.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/27/rex-rammell-idaho-goper-j_n_270751.html

I am not saying it is typical, but it is not just on the fringes either and it is ugly. Also, I don't think all of them are necessarily prejudiced against Blacks, perhaps they are opportunist and use other people's prejudices to further their political aims.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You're confusing needs with rights.

1 Reply

@okie,

I would really like to see an explanation of how legalizing prostitution would "harm the liberty and well being of others", how it "offends the rights of other people" or how it "harms someone else's rights".

I think the point is that you don't like it, so you have no problem with the state interfering and outlawing something.

2 Replies

@old europe,

oe, there are all kinds of laws that draw a line in our society, in terms of what behaviors are allowed. For example, you cannot go nude in public. You could begin to argue that it hurts nobody, let everyone just do whatever they please, after all, go nude, smoke pot, have sex with relatives and minors or anyone as long as consensual, legalize prosititution, all sorts of obsenities and pornography, the list would be endless, as the baser parts of human nature says I want more when given a little. I do not believe a decent society allows those things because it offends our sense of decency and it does in fact harm society. I believe there are such things as harming others in ways that are not always visible physical harm, and that is precisely why we have all kinds of laws now that disallow some things. One of the functions of government is to protect us from each other. After all, we do want to live in a decent society, that is I think a right that we should have. We should be able to go to town and shop without having to witness people "doing it" in public, or whatever any dysfunctional person wants to do.

I think you would also favor some lines be drawn, I think virtually everyone does, I just suspect you may draw them in a different place. Some of these things, I accept the fact that I may not always be on the winning side of the debate, but I am not going to rebel over it, I instead mourn the fact that society in general is losing its soul, and I don't look for good things to happen when that happens.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

oe, there are all kinds of laws that draw a line in our society, in terms of what behaviors are allowed.

Sure. But if you really believe in individual liberty and freedom, then you should at least question those laws. But that's not what you're doing. Instead, you seem to argue that these laws exist, therefore they must be followed. Kinda the definition of statism, isn't it?

okie wrote:

For example, you cannot go nude in public.

That's a funny example. See, where I come from, you actually can. In fact, in summer people will go to the park on their lunch break, strip down and sunbathe naked.

Doesn't seem to harm anybody.

okie wrote:

You could begin to argue that it hurts nobody, let everyone just do whatever they please, after all, go nude, smoke pot, have sex with relatives and minors or anyone as long as consensual, legalize prosititution, all sorts of obsenities and pornography, the list would be endless, as the baser parts of human nature says I want more when given a little.

I don't see how public nudity or legalizing marijuana and prostitution would harm anybody, and you haven't made the case that it would.

You're simply trying to argue that legalizing behavior which doesn't victimize anybody must automatically lead to legalization of behavior that can be extremely harmful to other people. That's a silly argument.

okie wrote:

I do not believe a decent society allows those things because it offends our sense of decency and it does in fact harm society.

It offends your sense of decency, and therefore you want the state to interfere and make these kinds of behavior illegal. That's not different from Muslims being offended by seeing women without a khimar in public and therefore outlawing that kind of behavior.

You have so far made no case as to how legalizing prostitution would harm society.

okie wrote:

I believe there are such things as harming others in ways that are not always visible physical harm, and that is precisely why we have all kinds of laws now that disallow some things.

I agree absolutely. I'm in no way arguing in favour of legalizing behavior that would cause harm to somebody, even if it's not "visible physical harm". I'm arguing that e.g. legalizing prostitution wouldn't cause any harm at all.

okie wrote:

One of the functions of government is to protect us from each other. After all, we do want to live in a decent society, that is I think a right that we should have.

Again, I agree absolutely. But given that you usually argue that maximizing individual freedom and minimizing government interference are the most important values, you just haven't made the case that the government needs to protect people from themselves or from entering into consensual agreements with other adults, even if this behavior causes no harm to anybody else.

okie wrote:

We should be able to go to town and shop without having to witness people "doing it" in public, or whatever any dysfunctional person wants to do.

Should we also be able to go to town and shop without having to witness women showing their faces in public? Why should your sense of decency be imposed on everybody else by the government, but not somebody else's?

okie wrote:

I think you would also favor some lines be drawn, I think virtually everyone does, I just suspect you may draw them in a different place. Some of these things, I accept the fact that I may not always be on the winning side of the debate, but I am not going to rebel over it, I instead mourn the fact that society in general is losing its soul, and I don't look for good things to happen when that happens.

I am in favor of drawing certain lines somewhere, but I also don't argue that absolutely maximizing individual liberty as long as nobody else is harmed and minimizing government interference is always the most desirable goal. Usually, in these discussion, your position has been that curtailing individual liberties for no good reason, simply for "the common good", is a leftist policy. Socialism. Statism.

I would like to know why you seem to feel different when it comes to legalizing prostitution.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

You're confusing needs with rights.

I can assure you that I do not confuse needs with rights.

I can assure you that there are many in our society who consider their needs and wants to be rights, however.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Bernie Madoff comes to mind.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Should we also be able to go to town and shop without having to witness women showing their faces in public? Why should your sense of decency be imposed on everybody else by the government, but not somebody else's?

Way off topic, but I've got a story, and I'm going to tell it.

My dental hygenist is a retired Air Force Sargeant, and her last duty station was somewhere in Turkey. I had to ask if they were encouraged to be covered off duty, while in civilian areas. Turns out that in her area, they dressed western. A friend in another area sometimes went out in full chandor, or whatever they call it there. She said she just liked being invisible, sometimes.

I doubt she would have liked it as a requirement. Anyway, Turkey isn't like most of the Middle East in that respect.

0 Replies

@old europe,

oe, my personal liberty does not include the idea that I can do anything that I want to do in public. If the majority want to legalize all kinds of crude, indecent, and abnormal behavior, then I would have to use a quote of Eisenhowers, "freedom without responsibility is doomed to fail."

I am not in favor of limiting personal freedom and liberty when it has no demonstratable harm to others, but I think some of the most crude and obsene behaviors are demonstrably harmful to others. If it ever gets to the point that the general public does not agree with that, then we are in trouble. For example, it can be demonstrated that driving drunk is harmful physically, and we have laws against that. I think there are many behaviors that are also just as harmful in other ways, perhaps not directly in a physical way, but still very very harmful. If the general public does not agree with me, so be it, as I said, I think if we abuse our freedoms, we will all at some point lose them.

You can tell me that some things are not harmful, while I think they are, so we have to have a consensus on it as a country. I am saddened that more and more stuff passes as okay, such as the guy that raped the 13 year old, they are saying ah, let him off, no big deal, nobody was hurt. Surely you must know that morality is a slippery slope?

Another issue, some people think their personal rights are abridged when tested for drugs for a job, but I don't, as it protects other people from harm.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I support the people being able to decide if they want marijuana legalized or want same-sex marriages. In our democratic republic, with very few exceptions defined in the Constitution, it is the people and not an authoritarian govrenment who determine what the social contract shall be. The Constitution ensures that there will be no tyranny of the majority and allowing the people maximized liberty to develop the social contract ensures that there will be no tyranny of a minority. So long as individual liberties are not infringed, no group with an agenda should be able to override the social contract, and, so long as individual rights are not compromised, the will of the majority is the only logical means of writing that social contract.

So when the current president ran on a platform of universal health care, and was voted in by a clear majority, you accept that as the will of the majority to have universal health care?

Foxfyre is avoiding this question like the plague because answering it will expose another one of her inconsistencies.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I support the people being able to decide if they want marijuana legalized or want same-sex marriages. In our democratic republic, with very few exceptions defined in the Constitution, it is the people and not an authoritarian govrenment who determine what the social contract shall be. The Constitution ensures that there will be no tyranny of the majority and allowing the people maximized liberty to develop the social contract ensures that there will be no tyranny of a minority. So long as individual liberties are not infringed, no group with an agenda should be able to override the social contract, and, so long as individual rights are not compromised, the will of the majority is the only logical means of writing that social contract.

So when the current president ran on a platform of universal health care, and was voted in by a clear majority, you accept that as the will of the majority to have universal health care?

I'm interested in the answer to this one, too.

We're all waiting . . . .

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

oe, my personal liberty does not include the idea that I can do anything that I want to do in public. If the majority want to legalize all kinds of crude, indecent, and abnormal behavior, then I would have to use a quote of Eisenhowers, "freedom without responsibility is doomed to fail."

I am not in favor of limiting personal freedom and liberty when it has no demonstratable harm to others, but I think some of the most crude and obsene behaviors are demonstrably harmful to others. If it ever gets to the point that the general public does not agree with that, then we are in trouble. For example, it can be demonstrated that driving drunk is harmful physically, and we have laws against that. I think there are many behaviors that are also just as harmful in other ways, perhaps not directly in a physical way, but still very very harmful. If the general public does not agree with me, so be it, as I said, I think if we abuse our freedoms, we will all at some point lose them.

You can tell me that some things are not harmful, while I think they are, so we have to have a consensus on it as a country. I am saddened that more and more stuff passes as okay, such as the guy that raped the 13 year old, they are saying ah, let him off, no big deal, nobody was hurt. Surely you must know that morality is a slippery slope?

Another issue, some people think their personal rights are abridged when tested for drugs for a job, but I don't, as it protects other people from harm.

I agree with most of this, but I think the social contract allows a society to order itself according to its unique sense of decency. For instance, women baring their breasts on a public road or street is the norm in some societies and nobody thinks anything about it. There is absolutely no way no make a case that this would 'harm' anybody. But if the people want women to not bare their breasts in public, then that becomes part of the social contract just as the social contract dictates that guys won't wear see-thrugh trousers on the street or couples won't have intercourse in the middle of the public park or rules and decorum for how the flag shall be displayed and respected, etc.

The same social contract, for good reasons and bads, dictates dress code for various circumstances, determines what is and is not good table manners or proper social ettiquette, and which side of the road automobiles will be expected to travel.

As long as most of a society agrees on what is and is not 'correct' behavior, there will be peace and harmony.

But when leaders fail to recognize and respect the moral and social values built into the social contract or a rebellious minority determines to upset the social contract, life becomes much less pleasant for everybody. When the social conract is corrupted to the point that individual liberties are being violated, we begin to see serious erosion of the entire system.

And without getting that complicated about it, I think that is why so many Americans are unhappy, upset, and angry at the way things are going right now.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

P.S. The government should not have the right to randomly test me for drugs unless I give it cause to believe I am illegally endangering others (drunk drivers, etc.). My employer, as a condition of my employment, does.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But when leaders fail to recognize and respect the moral and social values built into the social contract or a rebellious minority determines to upset the social contract, life becomes much less pleasant for everybody. When the social conract is corrupted to the point that individual liberties are being violated, we begin to see serious erosion of the entire system.

A rebellious minority was determined to upset the "social contract" that embraced segregation. It was really unpleasant for white people when black people would not accept second-class status within our society. White people believed that their individual rights were being violated if they were forced to eat at the same lunch counter as a black person.

A rebellious minority was determined to upset the "social contract" that persecuted homosexuals. It was really unpleasant for the straight folk to see two men holding hands in public and the very thought of what those people were doing in the privacy of their bedrooms made the straight folk anxious to beat the gay folk to a bloody pulp. Now, the straight folk believe that allowing the gay folk to get married somehow violates their individual rights.

God forbid that there should ever be an erosion in the status quo because the bigots might experience displeasure and claim that their individual rights have been violated.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I don't believe employers have, or should have that right unless it's a matter of safety. Companies which employ CDL drivers not only may test, they must. A stylist in a beauty salon endangers no one.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Small minds always come out with smaller answers.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

And that includes you, Foxie. You think your perceptions about what should be legal or not legal falls into that class; and it has nothing to do with our constitution or freedoms. What you have are personal opinions that are contrary to equal rights for all individuals, and you have the bad habit of contradicting yourself on many issues.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, I think liberals such as oe want to make the analogy that conservatives love big government or Statism in regard to laws about personal behavior, they use that argument when confronted by conservatives accusing them of wanting big government to enforce their socialistic programs upon everyone. I have run into this argument numerous times. I do not think the analogy works very well, because there is a fundamental difference between the two. For example, I think everyone agrees that a code of behavior is appropriate for society, it is merely a matter of the difference in where liberals and conservatives may wish to draw the line or make distinctions between what is harmful or appropriate. Secondly, these codes of behavior have alot more to do with how we treat each other, protecting us from each other in terms of harmful behavior, it is not a matter of government usurping basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, and so on, and it is not a matter of taking from us our private property or money to support other people and massive government bureaucracies. A code of behavior does not necessarily at all increase the size of government in any significant way, nor does it make it overly intrusive in a significant manner. It instead draws distinctions about what government endorses or limits to protect people from each other. Of course some people claim smoking pot should be their personal right, but I fail to see how this is comparable to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I think that if one looks at drug laws as an example here, laws against drug use are designed to protect people from harm by other people that abuse drugs. Face it, some drugs are harmful and they not only harm the ones that use them, but they also harm their families, their employers, and society in general, and we all end up paying for the harmful effects. Such laws do not take away basic rights or necessarily create huge bureaucracies, they instead work to avoid bureaucratic spending to treat drug abuse and the effects of it, which not only involves inefficiencies in the economy, but also in education, and it also involves huge costs of incarcerating people that commit crimes due to drug abuse. How much crime is committed by people that need money to support their habit, obviously a huge amount. People also use the argument that prohibition only created more crime, but actually I have read that doing away with prohibition may not have been as wonderful as advertised, the proof being in the untold and monstrous costs to society of alcohol abuse that have increased. I am not proposing we return to prohibition, but neither do I argue that it was harmful to society. Similarly, I do not think legalizing marijuana will improve society or lessen the harm done to each other as a result of it.

So my conclusion here is that laws about personal behavior are not about increasing size of government or Statism as liberals or oe may want to argue, but they are rather about minimizing the social costs of indecent and damaging behavior that may otherwise end up costing society even more, and otherwise creating bigger government to compensate for the social damage done.

1 Reply

@okie,

What socialistic programs are you talking about? The one you participate in called social security and Medicare? If you are so against these socialistic programs, why are you participating in them?

How did you determine they were socialistic? Because we paid into the program with our taxes?

Do you understand how our laws are originated in this country? It's called a democratic republic, and we vote people into office who then create our laws.

Do you interpret our form of government as socialistic/communistic?

0 Replies

Just wondering, does Obama think he is mayor of Chicago, or president? How come he is spending time lobbying for Chicago, is it all the investments and personal gain potential for him and alot of his friends, such as Valerie Jarret, slum lords, Mayor Daly, and all the other Chicago cronies of his that are making boatloads of money there, including from government programs there? Where are the investigative reporters worth their salt these days? Did they all stay in Wasilla, Alaska after the planeloads of them descended upon that city when Palin ran for vp?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/18/olympic-sized-boondoggle-what-valerie-jarrett-and-michelle-obama-are-up-to/

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know