Right Thinking From The Left Coast
"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

A Nation of Racists

I was going to write something deep and profound about a Nobel Prize Winner declaring that Obama will be assassinated if he’s elected and Ed Rendell proclaiming that America “isn’t ready” to elect a black President—this being the same America that is giving him landslide victories in red states.

But Penn beat me to it.

One of the things I like about Obama is that he seems to break from this “those who disagree with me are evil” meme. After two decades of being told that opposing welfare means I want children to starve; that wanting school choice means I hate education; that opposing affirmative action means I’m a racist cracker—it’s refreshing to have a mainstream liberal who sees these as disagreements, rather than good against evil.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/12/08 at 12:03 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 02/12/08 at 01:42 PM from United States

Still not going to vote for him....

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 02:09 PM from United States

Close your eyes and listen.He does use purty words and all, but he is a socialist as they come.His little “Patriot Business” concept is total BS for anyone who has even an iota of belief in the free-market.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 02:32 PM from United States

You think we have a free market or will have a more free market with a future president?

I espoused support for Ron Paul early but I’m coming to the realization that we are far past the point of having the limited government that the founders envisioned. Paul is the only candidate that truly wants to get rid of most of the federal government and he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at the nomination.

I think free market ideals are better looked for in congress where the purse strings are actually supposed to be held. If people paid more attention to their congressional races, we might actually get somewhere.

Posted by Helo on 02/12/08 at 02:42 PM from United States

Close your eyes and listen.He does use purty words and all, but he is a socialist as they come.

Agreed. He’s really pretty and he speaks well, but all in all, that’s nothing more than fleece over the eyes to shade us from his socialist agenda.

Paul is the only candidate that truly wants to get rid of most of the federal government and he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at the nomination.

I never supported Paul because he’s got wacky supporters and he’s more than a little bit weird himself. He has some great ideas, but those ideas were presented by the wrong messenger.

I still think it’s possible to go back to a limited government base, but it’ll take more than one candidate who wants to do it all at one time. It’ll be more along the lines of someone who can work the strings from the inside and start disassembling it with a base of citizen supporters and government insiders. Ron Paul only had the wacky weirdos who did cool stuff like hang painted banners over freeway overpasses.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 02:50 PM from United States

I never supported Paul because he’s got wacky supporters and he’s more than a little bit weird himself. He has some great ideas, but those ideas were presented by the wrong messenger.

I’ve come to accept that now.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 03:04 PM from United States

Whatever you think about his politics, Hal’s point about Obama’s stance regarding contrary points of view stands: Obama does not treat his opponents as idiots or traitors.  He understands that people have contrary points of view and is willing to try to reason with them to bring them around.  Hillary Clinton’s stance is much closer to George W. Bush’s, you’re either with her or against her.

In the general election I’d much prefer Obama to Clinton on the Dem ticket, I might not agree with Obama’s policy views, but I think if Clinton won she would be poison for this country.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 03:17 PM from United States

How in the world did you equate “ I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,”

with

Ed Rendell proclaiming that America “isn’t ready” to elect a black President

Some select whites are now “America”?

You think there might be some people out there not ready to elect a Mormon President? How about a woman? Theres alot of ageism in our society, you think there might be some people out there not ready to elect an over 70 year old guy as President? They said the same thing about Catholics. Of course there are some whites out there not ready for Obama but Rendell did not say America is not ready.

Incidently, Obama is half black. I know that gets overlooked, maybe that will assuage the true rednecks out there into rethinking their position.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 03:30 PM from United States

Theres alot of ageism in our society, you think there might be some people out there not ready to elect an over 70 year old guy as President?

I’m not voting “Old White Guy 2008”.

Incidently, Obama is half black. I know that gets overlooked, maybe that will assuage the true rednecks out there into rethinking their position.

I was thinking about this the other day. A vote against half a black Obama is a vote against half a white Obama. Of course, with racist whites obsessing over “miscegenation”, perhaps he’s a non starter.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 03:43 PM from United States

Hey, I have one thing to say about Obama.

Jimmy Carter 2

He is just like that self righteous bastard. Preaching change and a hope for a better tomorrow.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 03:53 PM from United States

Hey, I have one thing to say about Obama.

Jimmy Carter 2

He is just like that self righteous bastard. Preaching change and a hope for a better tomorrow.

He’s a much better speaker than Carter, but essentially the same beast in too many respects.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 03:59 PM from United States

Jimmy Carter 2

Totally agreed. One term president. His first stop will be in Israel to declare it an aphartied state.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/12/08 at 03:59 PM from United States

I would agree with you that Obama is quite liberal—which is what I said in the post. However, if you look at the people who he’s surrounding himself with, he’s more complex than that. one of his chief economic advisors - Liebman - favors partial privatization of social security.

I have a post on Carter and Obama penned. But I’m waiting until the primary is over to put it up.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 05:30 PM from United States

I certainly agree with Penn that people that disagree with me just disagree with me.  The opposing view is not “evil”.  If he thinks that this problem is limited to “liberals”, he is mistaken.  Look to Hannity, Boortz, Coulter for his first assignment.  It is a human trait that probably had something to do with survival in less cushy times.

He also doesn’t seem to understand the South.  There is not much KKK in Atlanta, but leave the Metro area and things take a sharp turn for the worst.  I don’t really think that the KKK will take him out.  The Clinton campaign will beat ‘em to it ...

Posted by dwex on 02/12/08 at 05:45 PM from United States

Totally agreed. One term president. His first stop will be in Israel to declare it an aphartied state.

Manwhore, sometimes you say the stupidest things.

You compare him to Carter, and then say this, when Carter’s one and only real claim to fame is the Israel/Egypt peace treaty?

Think before you type…

Posted by HARLEY on 02/12/08 at 06:02 PM from United States

Agreed. He’s really pretty and he speaks well, but all in all, that’s nothing more than fleece over the eyes to shade us from his socialist agenda.

Exactly Tailor made for the modern media machine.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 06:06 PM from United States

Yea dwex, or Carter can say he gave up a strategic canal in Panama. A canal we invested in and constructed. Or you can Say Carter was famous for letting another country storm our embassy and doing absolutely nothing about it for months and months. The only action carter took was “Eagle Claw,” which was a disaster to begin with. Lets not forget Carter’s firm resolve to face the soviet threat...walking out of the olympics in response to the Soviet invasion of afghanistan. Honestly I could prattle on almost endlessly about what Carter is infamous for.

I’d take a leader like George Bush who actually reacts to threats, over one like Carter who fucking let an embassy staff stay hostage for over a year.  Seriously dwex.

Think before you type.

Posted by dwex on 02/12/08 at 06:12 PM from United States

Screw off, Tool. Learn to read: “one claim to fame”. Does that somehow imply I’m a fanboi?

Manwhore equated Obama to Carter, and followed it up by saying that Obama would declare Israel an apartheid governement. About the stupidest analogy you could make, since Carter was a huge ally of Israel. It made no fucking sense.

FWIW, it’s truly about 50/50 whether Carter or Dubya will go down in history as the worst president ever.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 06:58 PM from United States

We only suffered four years of Carter.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 08:09 PM from United States

when Carter’s one and only real claim to fame is the Israel/Egypt peace treaty?

No this implies, ignorance on the blunders carter became famous for.

You might also not want to forget that peace treaty lead to Nasser getting killed by his own military.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 08:35 PM from United States

when Carter’s one and only real claim to fame is the Israel/Egypt peace treaty?

I thought it was the time he admitted to Playboy that he had lust in his heart.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 09:34 PM from United States

I thought it was the time he admitted to Playboy that he had lust in his heart.

He was lying - the only thing he’s ever had in his heart is revisionist history....

Posted by dwex on 02/12/08 at 10:00 PM from United States

You might also not want to forget that peace treaty lead to Nasser getting killed by his own military.

Unless you mean Sadat, you have your head up your ass. And yeah, him signing that treaty was an incredibly couragous thing to do. He pretty much knew it would get him killed. The fact that Mubarrak has both sustained the treaty and not been killed is astonishing.

Posted by on 02/12/08 at 10:04 PM from United States

Yea, I meant Sadat, no need to be a hard on about it.

Posted by dwex on 02/12/08 at 10:09 PM from United States

Yea, I meant Sadat, no need to be a hard on about it.

Look at your initial response to me in this thread, then go ponder why I’m treating you like a prick…

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: E.T. Stay Home

Previous entry: Sharia In The UK

<< Back to main