Complacency will destroy change and its message. Americans should constantly and continually challenge the political establishment they have just shaken up.
Even just five years ago, it probably seemed very unlikely that a black person would ever become President of the United States. But in a landslide victory over Arizona Senator John McCain, Barack Obama has been elected the nation's 44th President.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Franco
Les Slater,
Now speaking of oppressed workers in America that you so love to do.
First, I assert that any number of employees can come together and start up a business of their own, that is if they want to risk their life savings, home, car, what ever they put of as collateral, and then work the 12-14 hours per day that most all owners have to while their employees put in about half that time and are off on their one chosen time.
Les, convince me that employees can’t start their own business if they chose to? And inclued blacks in your argument as well while you at it.
Second, if they can’t do that on their own because they won’t take those risks, and or are unwilling to have to work that hard, how is it that by revolution and taking someone else’s company by force qualifies them to be responsible owners it they could not do it on the own in the first place.
And remember you can’t have all chiefs and no Indian’s once you take the company by force. So explain how the new revolutionary management of the company qualifi4es as being made out of finer ethical clay when they are in power virus the previous owners.
77 - Franco
#74 " Cindy D
Franco,
You are not only a font of arrogance but also of ignorance.
Ad hominem attack argument (argument against the man) (argument against the person). This is false logic. It’s a fallacy because even arrogant and ignorant people can still make true statements.
Cindy, kindly respond in making an argument or rebuttal directly to the specific claim or statement you contend with, and please leave what you think you perceive to be my attitude or level of intelligence out of it. They have no bearing on whether the claim is true or false. Thank you.
78 - Dave Nalle
Lisa, regarding your #20. I don't see how it is a response to anything I said. I never mentioned Obama in my comment,and I suppose my analysis could apply to a much broader spectrum of people than just the left or the elites.
The truth is that most people in America do not volunteer and do not give substantial amounts of money to charity. They instead assume that by paying taxes they are relieved of their individual responsibility towards others by transferring that responsibility onto the government.
Furthermore, they are even more willing to see the government provide the support they choose not to provide to the needy themselves by using the money of other people taken from them involuntarily.
Dave
79 - Les Slater
Franco,
"So good night Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, and hello Martin Luther King!!!!."
I share your disgust with Jackson and Sharpton but would have a hard time accepting your optimistic equating of Obama with King.
You will notice in my 66 I said, "Your 63 appears to be a good appreciation of Franco's 58 as far as his belief that racism is no linger an issue."
'...as far as...' That was a conditional statement. Very consciously and deliberately so. I found much of your 58 quite positive and generally agree. Certainly nothing to get into a debate about.
What I saw as troubling was 'What I celebrate is the fact that finally at long last with his realization there are no more blanketed excuses. Blacks now have an overwhelming majority of Americans, of all colors, who have now made that abundantly clear to them.'
Blanketed excuses? Whether you intended or not, I saw that as a denial that racism still exists, at least not in any important way.
Like I said, racism runs deep and has not played itself out yet.
Do I relish the fact there is racism? No, it is one of the things keeping workers divided to the advantage of the bosses. I cheer in a similar way that you do, even with the election of Obama, it is a good sign from that perspective. Not only has anti-Black racism receded, but also anti-immigrant, ant-gay, anti-woman and a whole lot of other phobias and hatreds.
It's late. I'll re-read your last couple posts and try to further answer them later.
Les
80 - Lisa Solod Warren
That's right, Dave. Back off now.
Do your research. Find out how much people DO give to charity and who gives it.
The general assumption among conservatives is that the liberal elite don't contribute. I keep seeing these dumb ass bumper stickers: Annoy a Liberal, Get a Job and Work Hard (or something to that effect). You made that same assumption and now you take the liberal elite OUT of the picture.
You make these blanket judgments and when you are called on them you back away.
Our responsibility to society is huge: WHO do think runs all the soup kitchens and halfway houses and community based organizations? Every "liberal elitist" I know is completely responsibly not only for pay taxes to help the less unfortunate but for also getting down into the trenches and doing a lot of the work, too, ALL WHILE living a normal, hardworking decent life.
THAT, Dave, was the point I was making.
And that, Dave, is responsibility. We may think the government should help, yes, but we are willing to, too.
81 - Mark Saleski
regarding your #20. I don't see how it is a response to anything I said.
another example of why it's impossible to take you seriously, as the main thrust of your statement was:
it explains why the leftist elite find high taxes and socialism to be to their beneift - they'd rather pay taxes to have the government take care of the people than take personal responsibility for anything.
and no, you didn't mention obama, but instead the "leftist elite" and "socialism", two of the most tired cliches of the entire campaign and political discussion in general.
there is no more fact behind those two concepts (as attached to "the left") than there is behind the mud gob that obama is a terrorist.
82 - Christopher Rose
Mark, you don't actually expect Dave to make sense do you? That's not what he does...
83 - Lisa Solod Warren
Oh, Christopher.. two clever comments back to back on two different posts. You are on a roll today. Thanks for the smiles.
84 - Franco
#79 " Les Slater
"I share your disgust with Jackson and Sharpton but would have a hard time accepting your optimistic equating of Obama with King.
Apparently I did not make myself clear. I was not equating Obama with King at all.
My statement was in direct reference with it's proceeding paragraph where I assert that angry black racism and those who rally this hate in blacks and fan its flames, like (Jackson and Sharpton) must be rejected, and the truly positive sprit of King in trying to unit the races in mutual respect must replace it.
With this in mind, let’s take a look one more time at that preceding paragraph and see if you can find where I support Kings dream on unity, and where I reject the dark black racism of divide that Jackson and Sharption promote. Here is that paragraph.
"This is a profound time of responsibility for black Americans. I support you, I solute you, and I will do all that I can to join hands with you. But you will have to show me you care about that. Don't come to rage at me about racism, I am not a racist. Its time to let your racist anger go, and let go of those who fan those flames, it holds you back and we have work to do. Let's get at it."
Now, did you see where I support Kings dream on unity, and where I reject the dark black racism of divide that Jackson and Sharption and their ilk promote.
If you focus on the negative and hate for your energy, it is negative and hateful energy. If you focus on the positive and the love for your energy, it is positive loving energy. This is not rocket science. For as a man thinkith, so he is.
People can hate and be angry for so long that it actually becomes like a friend to them, and it can be hard to let go, it can even be like a lost love or death in the family.
I was rejected by Zedd with that same negative energy of Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk, and she relies less on the positive energy’s of King, which she rejected when I displayed them. I assert that holds Kings dream back, and that is way I at the very beginning of my paragraph in question is state “This is a profound time of responsibility for black Americans.” Because it is the profoundly responsible thing to do to embrace King and let go of the Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk.
That is why I said to Zedd "thanks for proving my point."
I will reject that negative energy, its divisions, its hate, its dog chasing tail mentality. I will always reject it for all the days of my life and instead embrace and support the positive light of King. I will not abandon him for anyone not matter if they are black or white.
Additionally, I hope that I have cleared up your misconception that I was equating Obama and King. Obama has to do his own equating to the light of King and rejection of the Jackson and Sharpton aproach and I hope he fully does that.
But regarless of what he does, he can not do it for us, we have to do it for ourselves. We need not look to the state, we only need look to our own hearts and King knew that fully. Do you really think King would not being saying all these same things if he were alive today with Obama as his president too?
Now back to your statement for a moment. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts in support of your statement that you find it hard accepting optimistic equalities with Obama and King. What exactly do you mean?
85 - Dawn
I'll tell you what I find alarming in all of this is the degree of hatred and dangerous opposition to our new president. I have been visiting a lot of GOP and conservative blogs in the last few weeks and I am shocked at the level of hostility these folks have to our new president-elect. I have seen not-so-veiled threats toward Obama, and general ill-will, not to mention, bad karma. People suggesting he ride in a convertible with the top down, or worse. Then there's the blatant baiting of authorities to come find "them" while they wait with their "guns" locked and loaded.
Jeebus, WTF is wrong with people? I have decided (with of course a few exceptions, Arch not being one of them) that the remaining GOP/Conservatives fall into two camps: angry white men who are deeply afraid a non-white controls their fate, and those loopy evangelicals who are huddled in their panic rooms waiting for the rapture.
Scary either way. Now, instead of engaging in healthy political debate, with realistic expectations of my govt. for the next four years, I have to stress myself and pray someone doesn't try and "remove" our 44th Prez.
Seriously, how can we trust the GOP again when their first and only response is either violence or invoking end of times?
I just want to raise my children in a world where centrist values based on decency is the norm. Is that too much to ask?
I don't think Obama is the messiah or anything of the like. I think he is a smart man inspired to fix some major ills in this country. He is by no means perfect or without faults. Anyone with the ambition to be president should be kept in check, but I do think he is a decent, family man with good values and the determination to make wise choices. How can those qualities be bad.
Oh, and the whole freakout by conservatives for Obama suggesting mandatory volunteering by young people smells of hypocrisy. It's okay to draft people to kill other humans, but not to volunteer to help their community and world? Yep, that's Christian values for you.
For the record, I will deeply encourage both of my children to join Americorp, just like my wonderful, liberal, smart and wise step-daughter did.
Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelicals - all of you, take a deep breath and hard look at yourselves. Clearly America isn't interested in your divisive, hate-filled, bigoted agenda. You are the way of the past, Obama is the way of the future.
86 - Lisa Solod Warren
Thanks, Dawn. I agree 100 percent. I just heard from a friend the same sort of hate filled stuff from her so-called Republicans "friends"that you are hearing. It made her very sad. I told her she just needs to stay away from them. I doubt she can convince them at this point that Obama is not a Muslim socialist bent out on destroying the U.S. I don't know what the hell gets into these people but it DOES have something to do with fear of the black man, no matter how much they deny it.
Jesus, asking him to ride in a car with the top down. If that isn't the sickest thing I ever heard. It makes me want to weep.
87 - Zedd
Franco,
Honestly I really don't think you are arrogant nor ignorant. I think you are right, for someone like you. That post is good for you. I think you can't process things in a way that would lead to a reasonable conclusion. Your conclusion is dumb. It's not your fault though. I can't get upset. No one cab talk you out of it. It's just you. There are multitudes of you out there.
In your state, enjoy life. Continue to happily wonder the Earth joyously giving instructions to people who may be smarter, more accomplished, harder working, more creative, organized, responsible, nicer, kinder, richer, better traveled, or cooler than you. In a way I envy your bliss, seriously. But knowing just how embarrassed you make people feel, I kinda don't. But I get embarrassed easily. Like when watching Sara Palin being interviewed by Couric. I had to switch channels cause it was so embarrassing. I was alone in my bedroom and felt utterly embarrassed! She actually is talking about 2012 instead of hiding from all humanity. Like you, she thinks she is great and can criticize people publicly when she didn't even know that Africa was a continent. Flush!! Well it's sort of the same with you. Except your assignment for me and my children and my mom and brother and cousins, friends and nephews, church members and co-workers (think I've hit all the blacks in my life) oh and strangers on the street is too much. Hence, the post. I thought you sorta needed to know. It's dumb. Stop yourself. No matter how blissful, manic and/or wise you may think you are at the time, STOP.
88 - Zedd
Dawn,
I don't think Obama is the Messiah either.
I think he is a smart who had the nerve to say what we've all been thinking. Because he is smart, he will probably be the guy to gather the right people together to make things happen.
89 - Zedd
Redo:
Dawn,
I don't think Obama is the Messiah either.
I think he is a smart guy who had the nerve to say what we all have been thinking. Because he is smart, he will probably be the guy to gather the right people together to make things happen.
90 - Clavos
I'll tell you what I find alarming in all of this is the degree of hatred and dangerous opposition to our new president. I have been visiting a lot of GOP and conservative blogs in the last few weeks and I am shocked at the level of hostility these folks have to our new president-elect. I have seen not-so-veiled threats toward Obama, and general ill-will, not to mention, bad karma. People suggesting he ride in a convertible with the top down, or worse.
All of that, and more, has been (and continues to) appearing on the lefty blogs all eight years of the Bush administration. Lots of veiled and not so veiled threats on his and his cabinet's lives, etc. Hell, look at all the vitriol directed against Palin in the last few months.
That's why I like and respect BC so much: It's not one-sided (most of the time), and even our worst commenters pale compared to what you saw on the right-wing blogs lately, and what was evident on the left-wing ones for the last several years.
91 - Lisa Solod Warren
Clav, guess I never visited those "lefty" blogs..... that threatened the cabinet with assassination....like people are doing already with Obama. Never saw anything like that. Dissatisfaction with Bush, yes. But death threats. Nope. Never. Ever. Hard to believe. But if you SAY so. What I see is that the right wing stuff is pretty mainstream. And that is what is really scary.
92 - Franco
#63 " Zedd
Franco, your statement was dumb. You don't know what racism is. You wont take the time to find out because you think you automatically understand it. You have never tried to research the topic because you assume you know because well, its about Blacks so I automatically know more, somehow.
Ad hominem attack argument (argument against the man) (argument against the person).
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It’s a fallacy because the characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim has no bearing on whether the claim is true of false.
Zedd, kindly respond in making an argument or rebuttal directly to the specific claim or statement you contend with, and please leave what you think you perceive to be my characteristics or beliefs out of it. They have no bearing on whether the claim is true or false. Thank you.
Additionally Zedd, your post #87 is also exactly that same kind of ad hominem attack argument. The entire post from beginning to end is an (argument against the man) (argument against the person). You continue to exercise this false logic.
93 - Marcia Neil
The legal-inquiry process is not cut-and-dried with regard to human behavior; those who present facts and arguments can burden us fatally with their prejudices and interpret our replies any way they want that benefits them.
94 - Dawn
What Lisa said, and then some.
I make a point of listening to all sides of an argument before I make decisions, which is why I am willing to read right-wing blogs, non-partisan blogs and so-called lefty blogs. I think it's important to note however, that most assassinations (Lincoln, JFK, RFK and MLK) were left-leaning, civil rights pushing leaders and were done so by those who opposed that agenda.
So, you can see why folks on the left would feel a little antsy about seeing such anger towards our first racially diverse leader. There's a history there. Not to mention the fact that the NRA is a mistress of the right-wing party, not the lefties. We are tree-hugging, Prius loving, granola eaters, the most offensive thing we're known for is smelling like patchouli.
Don't even mention Ayers, that's the exception, not the norm.
95 - Clavos
What's a "Prius?"
96 - Dawn
A Prius is an energy efficient hybrid car made by Toyota and loved by many a lefty-loon ;)
97 - Clavos
And what about Che, Fidel, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Pfleger, Just to name a few other lefties, none of whom probably smell like patchouli?
Oh, and BTW: JFK was shot by a Soviet-loving...lefty.
And RFK was killed by a man to whom Bill Ayers (an undisputed lefty) dedicated his book. And RFK for reasons having to do with Arab nationalism.
98 - zingzing
clavos, do you really equate soviet communism with the american left? sure, we lean further that way than you do, but i doubt you'd mistake me for a soviet-loving lefty. soviet-style communism is pretty well universally disregarded as unworkable, at best. total fucking evil at worst.
the american left is, as the term suggests, chiefly "american." the "left" is relative. i think a lot of us would be a little uncomfortable with european levels of leftism and would scoff at soviet communism. of course, there are some here who would disagree with me.
but if you think that it is people like us that shot jfk, heloise will tell you who killed her. i swear, we're not total loons. we're just not as crazy as you are. but we're all idiotic americans.
99 - Clavos
zing,
My point, which you're so adroitly ducking, is that violence in support of ideology is practiced by both the right and the left, right here in the good old USA, sometimes even by the (both left and right wing) federal government; as in Waco (Democrat administration) and Ruby Ridge (Republicans).
100 - zingzing
we've gone over that (waco, ruby) before, clavos. both were ridiculous. in those situations, for once, i trust that the government went in with good intentions and made many mistakes that contributed to an unwanted conclusion to stupid, stupid people with guns. you get guns involved in something and someone is going to get shot dead. just the way of the world. the government was stupid, but you know what? the victims made the dumbass hick decision to stockpile weapons. so fuck em.
of course, my point, which you also avoided is that the american left is a far different beast from a nearly everyone you pointed out in your post. pol pot is a long way from obama, just as you are a long way from the right wing in canada--or, just as you are a long way from george bush, even though both of you are on the right.
our american right and left are BOTH much further to the right than the right or left in most any other country on earth. comparing our politics to any other country's is going to lead you to some ridiculous conclusions.
101 - Les Slater
Fidel Castro has been the head of state that has been the most targeted for assassination in the last half of the 20th century. This has not only been from the right but has had the encouragement, financing and participation by a string of U.S. governments, both Republican and Democrat.
The great liberal Kennedy sanctioned the overthrow of president Ngo Dinh Diem of Viet Nam in 1963. He was murdered, an assassination by the Kennedy regime. This was the head of an allied government, a puppet government, put in power by the United States. The guy was a Roman Catholic no less.
102 - Clavos
zing,
Again, I wasn't placing either the (american-style) right or left at a specific point on the spectrum, merely pointing out that americans of all political persuasions (and their government) are capable of, and do, wreak violence on americans from time to time.
103 - zingzing
alright, clavos. point taken.
104 - Les Slater
Calvos 102,
Americans? You know what Malcolm X said about the Kennedy assassination, don't you?
Les
105 - Lisa Solod Warren
Clav, the American "left" as it is in the USA is very peaceful compared to the American "right" in the USA (ie., Rush, Hannity, etc....) You simply cannot compare what comes out of right talk radio and right blogs with what the progressives or liberals who worked to get Obama elected were and are doing. Ayers and "communists" like those who assassinated JFK are not in any way connected with any progrssives or liberals I know or have know for the past 30 years. Get a grip.
And JFK's desire to take Castro out was a government desired, CIA desired thing...just as the Bush White House's whole get Saddam, get Noriega, etc. stuff was. That was a lot more than left or right wing ideology.
What is going on today on right wing talk radio and right wing blogs (and even what Palin did in her speeches) has nothing on the left to compare to.
106 - Lisa Solod Warren
PS Clav: You really didn't know what a Prius was?
107 - Les Slater
Lisa,
"And JFK's desire to take Castro out was a government desired, CIA desired thing...just as the Bush White House's whole get Saddam, get Noriega, etc. stuff was. That was a lot more than left or right wing ideology."
No ideology at all, just pragmatically going after anything or anybody getting in the way of their imperial prerogatives.
Les
108 - Clavos
Lisa,
Rush and Hannity advocate violence? I don't know; I don't listen to either, but I would think that if they were inciting publicly like that, the feds might have something to say about it.
And there are a hell of a lot of liberals who preach hate with the best of 'em--I don't have to tell you, you publish on PuffOh; I'm sure you've seen the hate spewed on that totally partisan, one-sided site.
I didn't say anything about kennedy trying to take out Fidel--I approve of any attempt to take him out by anybody--tell it to Les, he's the communist.
One thing about you lefties; a lot of you have no sense of humor. Of course I know what a Prius is - it's a Japanese hybrid car (which doesn't get as good mileage as other Toyota vehicles), and the second ugliest car on the road (after the Pontiac Aztek).
109 - Les Slater
Right on Clavos.
The Aztek is by far, far... the UGLIEST thing on the road.
110 - El Bicho
what Toyota gets better mileage than the Prius?
111 - Clavos
what Toyota gets better mileage than the Prius?
None. I'm full of shit.
112 - Dave Nalle
That's right, Dave. Back off now.
Lisa, I don't need to back off because I actually know what I'm talking about. It's a terrible mistake and an example of the arrogance I have been talking about that you assume I don't have the facts at my fingertips.
Do your research. Find out how much people DO give to charity and who gives it.
Well, let's start out with this fact. There is a close correlation between charitable giving and voting patterns. The top 12 states for charitable giving are all 'red' states which tend to vote Republican - in fact, they include the most red of the red states.
Perhaps you'd like a charitable giving comparison between the recent candidates in the presidential campaign. That is also available. You can guess the results, can't you? In fact, I gave more to charity in the last year than Biden did, even though his income is about double our family's with two working adults.
Next, there's the issue of religious giving. I'm not religious, but I acknowledge that the working class and the political right are as a whole, far more religious than the leftist elite. And the pattern of giving to religious charities is very significant. A study from Indiana University (PDF) shows that overwhelmingly, donations to religious charities come from those earning $100,000 or less, while those earning $1 million or more donate a disproportionately small amount to religious charities.
Now, you might say that this doesn't mean that the wealthy elites don't contribute to non-religious charities. But the same report shows that the very rich also neglect these charities, which are patronized the most by the middle class and the moderately rich.
When it comes to charities which focus on providing basic needs, like the soup kitchens you mention in this comment, they are again, overwhelmingly funded by those who earn under $100,000 a year, and only 1 in 10 who earn over $1 million a year donate to support them. And this isn't even taing donations in kind into account, and I know from personal experience that most of those I meet working in food and basic needs related charities are far less wealthy than I am and I'm hardly one of the super-rich.
The general assumption among conservatives is that the liberal elite don't contribute.
It's not that they don't contribute, it's that they see contributing in a different way which is very characteristic of the left. They believe that everyone should contribute to the poor whether they want to or not, so they see the government as the primary agent of charity rather than individuals or private institutions. This doesn't mean they don't care about the poor and downtrodden. It just means that they see it as a societal responsibility rather than an individual responsibility.
But to be fair, the elites do like to give to the big health charities like the cancer societies - large bureaucracies which focus their efforts on research for the benefit of humanity as a whole and which tend to give a lot of recognition to large contributors. They also do well on giving to the arts and to education, again areas which benefit everyone including themselves, not the individual poor.
You make these blanket judgments and when you are called on them you back away.
No, when I'm called on them I provide evidence. Then, characteristically, the strawman arguments and ad hominems begin coming out.
Our responsibility to society is huge: WHO do think runs all the soup kitchens and halfway houses and community based organizations?
Based on the data, mostly the working and middle class.
Every "liberal elitist" I know is completely responsibly not only for pay taxes to help the less unfortunate but for also getting down into the trenches and doing a lot of the work, too, ALL WHILE living a normal, hardworking decent life.
No question, there are some on the left who take charity very seriously and do everything they can to help. But the data does support my overall assessment of who takes responsibility and who does not as groups within society.
THAT, Dave, was the point I was making.
A point which is wrong, as it turns out.
And that, Dave, is responsibility. We may think the government should help, yes, but we are willing to, too.
Just a little less willing to help personally than those who think government should leave them alone.
And as a final note, as a society we give far, far too much money to large foundations focused on research and health and education and far two little to actually helping out the needy. That 2/3 of all charitable giving goes to these giant and often very inefficient charitable bureaucracies is a real shame. You get a lot more bang for your buck giving money to a local charity which helps the poor direclty.
Dave
113 - Dave Nalle
I think it's important to note however, that most assassinations (Lincoln, JFK, RFK and MLK) were left-leaning, civil rights pushing leaders and were done so by those who opposed that agenda.
How about Garfield and McKinley who were both conservative pro-business Republicans? Add them in and your two assassinated presidents are balanced out pretty effectively. Plus Lincoln was a Republican and although liberal, certainly not left-leaning in any modern sense. And JFK was a rather conservative, tax-cutting democrat. For that matter except in the area of civil rights, which is hardly an exclusively democratic issue, MLK was pretty conservative too. So your argument is twaddle.
And Dawn...
Oh, and the whole freakout by conservatives for Obama suggesting mandatory volunteering by young people smells of hypocrisy. It's okay to draft people to kill other humans, but not to volunteer to help their community and world? Yep, that's Christian values for you.
I challenge you to find ANY republican who advocates any kind of draft or involuntary servitude. The party was founded on opposition to government sanctioned slavery and no Republican president has ever signed a draft into law except for Lincoln who only did so very reluctantly towards the end of the Civl War. It is the democrats who have drafted Americans to fight in wars again and again and Republicans who have opposed the draft and ended it when they could.
I know you want to believe that Republicans are evil and warmongers, but the historical facts don't bear out your assumptions.
For the record, I will deeply encourage both of my children to join Americorp, just like my wonderful, liberal, smart and wise step-daughter did.
And you think that Republicans don't encourage their kids to volunteer? Just as I provided data earlier to help Lisa out on this, let me recommend Joseph Fried's book Republicans and Democrats: Rhetoric and Reality which references a number of different surveys on volunteerism and finds that overall Republicans volunteer about 20% more than Democrats do, as well as donating more to charity.
Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelicals - all of you, take a deep breath and hard look at yourselves. Clearly America isn't interested in your divisive, hate-filled, bigoted agenda. You are the way of the past, Obama is the way of the future.
Most Republicans I talk to are willing to give Obama a chance. There's a lot more concern about the radicals in Congress than there is about Obama. There's also a great deal of distress about Democrats who keep calling Republicans 'bigots' and talking about things like a 'divisive, hate-filled, bigoted agenda' and turning every argument into accusations of racism. The left seems incapable of understanding that most of the opposition to Obama was not on the basis of race, but on the issues and his beliefs. It's dismaying that so many democrats resort to this kind of hatemongering and demonization rather than at least according Republicans the minimal level of respect to believe their stated reasons for opposing Obama.
Cruising hate-sites and extremist anti-Obama groups doesn't give you a fair picture of where things stand on the right at this time. They just reinforce your prejudices.
Dave
114 - Franco
Cruising hate-sites and extremist anti-Obama groups doesn't give you a fair picture of where things stand on the right at this time. They just reinforce your prejudices.
Spoken for truth!
115 - Christopher Rose
Franco, you have an incomplete URL in the URL box above where you type in your comments. Please either complete it or delete it.
Thank you.
Christopher Rose
Blogcritics Comments Editor
116 - Les Slater
Many, if not most, of those that describe themselves as liberals think Republicans are either evil or stupid, if not both. This extends to the roughly fifty percent that vote Republican. I for one could not see any good reason for anybody preferring Kerry over Bush in 2004.
Liberalism, which is often accompanied by elitism, has NOTHING to offer.
117 - Clavos
"Liberalism, which is
oftenusually accompanied by elitism, has NOTHING to offer."There. Fixed it for ya, Les.
You're dead on, BTW.
118 - Christopher Rose
I would have thought anybody who considered Republicans as either evil or stupid was pretty stupid themselves.
I don't understand either the assertion that liberalism has nothing to offer or that it is usually accompanied by elitism.
Trite slogans don't make very persuasive arguments...
119 - Les Slater
Chris,
"I would have thought anybody who considered Republicans as either evil or stupid was pretty stupid themselves."
That was sort of the point that I was making. I think if you look objectively here on BC you will see some evidence of that.
"I don't understand either the assertion that liberalism has nothing to offer or that it is usually accompanied by elitism."
No administration, Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal has solved problems of late. They are getting worse. This predates Reagan. None of these have ANYTHING to offer.
It has been the broad layer of the population, particularly the working class, who have been pushing back on racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia as well as other reactionary ills.
BTW, only a quite small minority of the population would describe themselves as liberal.
Les
120 - Christopher Rose
After around fifty years of effort by some to roll back the social relaxation that started back in the 50s and 60s, which has primarily been focussed on those of a more tolerant nature and has used the word liberal as a cover for their attacks on tolerance and understanding, it is no surprise that the number of people willing to identify themselves as liberal has reduced.
Personally, I think tolerance is a good thing most of the time. The question shouldn't be why we should allow something but why we shouldn't.
Republican/Democrat and conservative/liberal are not interchangeable words. I don't recall seeing a liberal government in the USA for quite some time now, authoritarian or bossy seems more common a quality.
121 - Dawn
Honestly Dave, the only conservative site I read regularly is HotAir and BC's politics section.
So, while not all conservatives are spouting these vile suggestions, I've seen them ALL over the web on any given site with comments.
Let's face it, you yourself said "let the rioting and carburning begin" when it was clear Obama was going to be our next president. And despite your best efforts to the contrary, that was a race-loaded statement.
122 - Lisa Solod Warren
I have read nothing on HuffPo that advocated violence....
123 - Christopher Rose
I can go one better, Lisa. I have read nothing on HuffPo.
124 - Les Slater
"Personally, I think tolerance is a good thing most of the time. The question shouldn't be why we should allow something but why we shouldn't."
We agree.
"...the social relaxation that started back in the 50s and 60s..."
The sexual revolution, fight for Black rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, woman's and gay liberation? None of these were spearheaded by any government, liberal or otherwise. They were ALWAYS opposed by the government.
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were FORCED by powerful movements to enact any legislation. There was a deep radicalization.
Even the reactionary membership of the Supreme Court was was FORCED in 1973, in it's majority, to grant the right to women to control her own body.
ALL administrations, then, and since, have been attacking those gains.
125 - Clavos
The sexual revolution, fight for Black rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, woman's and gay liberation? None of these were spearheaded by any government, liberal or otherwise. They were ALWAYS opposed by the government.
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were FORCED by powerful movements to enact any legislation. There was a deep radicalization.
...ALL administrations, then, and since, have been attacking those gains.
Good points all, Les.