While reading through the posts of this section, I can’t help but wonder what it is that makes people react so strongly to Obama? I see no inflammatory posts about McCain and only a few about Palin. Whatever one’s political views are, do they have to based on attacking the opposing views?
This will probably anger some people, but I often feel that some of Obama’s strongest critics are those that find him threatening and that is what confuses me. The man’s politics are based on inclusion. Even if he is elected, he will hardly be a threat to anyone’s way of life or their beliefs. For example, he may be pro-choice and he may support gay rights but he is hardly forcing anyone to get an abortion or become gay.
In contrast, Palin does support rules that will reduce people’s rights and dis-include their beliefs. Again, think of her anti-abortion stance and lack of support for medical research (including research done of fruit flies). These ideas do impose beliefs and a specific way of life on people.
[quote=“Yoman Prince”]
So what is about Obama that makes people so mad?[/quote]
It’s because he is going to win the election by miles. People have nothing good to say about their 190 year old candidate and his nutjob running mate, so they slag down the opposition.
Besides it is in poor taste to say bad things about the infirm and the mentally unstable.
Obama to win by a clear distance. Get ready America.
Republicans think they have a divine right to rule, and go absolutely bonkers when their fingers are being pried from the controls of power. They can’t believe that the American people would actually prefer peace, freedom and prosperity over war, oppression and recession.
Same thing happened with Clinton. He won, he did good, and that drove the Republicans apeshit, accusing him of all sorts of bizarreness.
Lie, smear, cheat and steal: that is what Republicans do, and is why the are unfit to govern (let alone their horrendous policies).
This is a joke right…look at every single post on this website, or any site for that matter. Just read the comments on any story on the huff post. I’m really astonished that you actually think this. Are you blind. There’s only five posts on this topic, let me show you the inflammatory language.
I’m not going to go through all the other topics on this site, but seriously, how can you possibly say that there are no inflammatory posts about Republicans.
Your hypocrisy is really stunning. What is it about the left that breeds intolerance. I try to avoid posting about politics on this site because of the hate that spews from the expat left, but I have to respond here. Let me make two points. First, Barrack Obama is in strong support of all kinds of policies that reduce my rights. From tax policy, to health care, to education, his policies are all solidly on the left. His politics are not based on inclusion, as you put it. Barrack Obama is a man of the left, and the left, by definition, wants to reduce individual rights in favor of collective ones. There’s nothing wrong with that view point, but this big lie about how he will bring people together is simply stunning. When or where has he EVER done this. He has always been on the left. He has never supported anything bipartisan in his life. John McCain on the other hand has a decades long record of bringing people together. The list of his bi-partisan accomplishments is longer than any politician’s in the country. And yet the left continues to spout this big lie. Why can’t you just say that you are on the left, and you support candidates on the left.
And second, your characterization of Sarah Palin is so typical. Yes, she is pro life. I am pro choice, personally, but I don’t denigrate the other side’s view. Can you not see that while you see her as taking away people’s rights, other people see abortion as taking a person’s rights but also their life. I disagree with that view, but I do see it as at least thoughtful and valid. And this argument that she opposes medical research is so ridiculous. Why do you feel you need to lie to make your point. Just tell the truth. She’s never tried to ban this research. She just doesn’t think the government should fund it. Big difference.
I’m not going to go through all the other topics on this site, but seriously, how can you possibly say that there are no inflammatory posts about Republicans.
Your hypocrisy is really stunning. What is it about the left that breeds intolerance.[/quote]
One thing I don’t tolerate is intolerance, and the intolerance is far more often than not initiated by the right (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, and character assassination). So forgive me if I don;t have much tolerance for the agents of intolerance.
In other words, my condemnations are in response to those initiated by Republicans.
That’s wrong. Liberalism favors individual rights first - the freedom of all. Conservatism favors the rights of a privileged few.
His healthcare policy will increase your rights by reducing the cost of healthcare to the individual. Education? Obama’s education policies will provide better education to all, there by increasing individual rights. His tax policy will only affect those who can afford it - the very rich; not you or me.
One thing about liberals: we support the interests of everyone. You will benefit; the rich will benefit; right-wingers will benefit; the poor will benefit. The rich get richer; the poor get richer. We will protect everyone’s rights, instead of taking them away like those on the right do.
Under liberals, if you oppose abortion, you are free not to have one. If you oppose gay marriage, you are free not to practice it. Nobody is forcing you. This is called freedom.
He has always favored the rights of all. And if Obama wins, we all stand to benefit; not just those at the top.
He’s not bringing anyone together now with his vile vitriol: “Obama is a socialist, a terrorist, who will raise your taxes!” McCain is lying through his teeth. And yes, I’m sorry to say, this gets me upset and angry.
I can respect their views if they were to pledge not to act on them. Unfortunately, they will put their views into practice. Bye bye, choice. Choice is a hard-won and precious right that is now hanging by a thread. Obama will protect this right; McCain will cut the thread.
No, she never tried to ban this research because she doesn’t have to power to do so. Anyway, my words were her “lack of support for medical research (including research done on fruit flies).” Here is one of the many links talking about her comments on the ridiculous nature of research on fruit flies, blithely discounting how so much genetic research starts with fruit flies: jedipunk.newsvine.com/_news/2008 … ing-autism
The rest of your comments, especially regarding the number of derisive remarks about McCain vs Obama will have to wait for when I have time to copy and paste the reams of posts. However, simply reading the topic headings gives a pretty good idea. Count the McCain topics and count the Obama topics…
Besides that, my point was that people tend to say worse things about Obama, more passionately than they do about McCain. It seems that much of the support expressed for McCain/ Palin is based on the criticizing of Obama. No one at the Democratic speeches has yelled “Kill him” about McCain, no one has called McCain a traitor or a terrorist.
Perhaps you suffer from an ascertainment bias of reading a politically-based thread? If you wanted to sing kumbaya in perfect bipartisan unity, perhaps an anonymous forum with politics as its topic isn’t the best place? And of course, there is plenty of the intolerance to go around here, as well as all over the web. Suggesting this is a unique aspect of the left is simply wrong. Read Tainan Cowboy’s and chewycorn’s posts for some no-holds-barred commentary. (Nothing wrong with that either.)
Care to actually argue those points rather than just asserting them? And, by “solidly on the left”, what exactly do you mean? Modern American Democrats are slightly more right than most moderate and even many “rightist” parties in Europe and are MUCH farther right than the liberal wing of the Democratic party under FDR and LBJ. And you say “left” as if it should be universally understood to be an epithet. Talk about counter-productive.
Care to cite specific violations?
“By definition”? Are you serious? The greatest expansion of domestic surveillance since Nixon occurred under majority Republican congress and a Republican president. Habeus corpus is now questionable under some circumstances and the Geneva conventions are quaint, according to my fellow alum Roberto Gonzales. And despite their record on these things, the Republicans are still shy of admitting that they limit individual rights and you bald-facedly say that it is an intrinsic part of a liberal platform to reduce individual rights? This is farcical. You can argue (with some difficulty considering the last 8 years) that the policies of liberals result in less freedom, but your assertion is just specious.
If it is so stunning, care to document your implication that he will be divisive? And do you even watch politics at all? What do you mean “He has never supported anything bipartisan in his life.”? Have you heard of the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation that was signed into law?
Since when was “McCain has no bipartisan record” been a theme of the Obama campaign specifically or Obama supporters in general? Citation please. And, I think nobody on the “left” is particularly shy about being there, though they may disagree about what label they use: left, liberal, progressive, Democrat, or a combination of the above. Again, I see no evidence that anyone on the left is ashamed of “admitting” that.
Well, in political discourse, there is plenty of denigration. Sometimes it serves a rhetorical purpose, but usually it isn’t very useful. Satirizing and unequivocally rejecting Palin’s candidacy on the merits of well-reasoned arguments, those are different issues. And there is no shortage of that type of rejection of Sarah Palin’s credentials. Ultimately, not every conclusion should be fair and balanced (see Galileo). Clearly, arguments should be evaluated in a fair and balanced way. But in the end, it is acceptable (and in many cases unavoidable; see Palin, Sarah) to conclude that one side of an argument is far inferior to another. In the case of Sarah Palin, there is plenty to suggest that she is not a first class intellect, and that alone is sufficient for me. I judge her based on her lackluster college record, her poor interviews, her lack of transparency, and her mocking of science. Many agree with me. At least 61 American Nobel laureates and Nature magazine have gone to the unprecented degree of endorsing Obama/Biden, largely on the basis of the anti-intellectual and anti-science record of Palin.
[quote=“Byshguy”]
And this argument that she opposes medical research is so ridiculous. Why do you feel you need to lie to make your point. Just tell the truth. She’s never tried to ban this research. She just doesn’t think the government should fund it. Big difference.[/quote]
She opposes stem cell research and mocks fruitfly research. The former clearly has medical research implications and the latter, while not obvious to the casual layman, does actually have a great deal of relevance to human interests in general and medical research in particular.
Ok, I have to amend what I said about there being less inflammatory posts McCain and Palin than Obama. I looked in the Crossfire section and there is plenty about Palin. It is besides the point that I believe what is said about Palin is justified and there is still so much more to say: Her ‘first dude’ was a member in good standing of the Alaskan Independence Party, she loves those $150,000 clothes and was arguing with the SNL wardrobe person when he asked her to wear what he had chosen for her, instead of her new duds (that I am sure she is choked about having to donate now), polluting the lakes in her own town to the degree that fish can’t live there anymore, trying to pass a bill to allow wolves to be shot from helicopters, signing a Christian Fundamentalist Week Proclamation (Oct 21-27 damn, can’t believed I missed that)… But I digress.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]I think it’s fear. Right now there’s a thread on the Free Republic website, which is the un-credited source of most of TC’s more erratic dribble, discussing the need to buy a gun. It has attracted more than 400 posts.
HG[/quote]
So…you got nothin’ but personal attacks on me?..No problem…keep going. You’re shooting par.
I agree with TC, actually. Why is it surprising that there is so much anger towards Obama? Since when have American elections been polite affairs ever? Maybe Reagan vs. Mondale, but then, it was clear Mondale was just gonna get his clock cleaned. But maybe it was contentious too. I don’t remember.
Anyway, there is always anger. To be perfectly honest, the anger towards Obama seems less focused this year than has the anger towards Dems in past years. Maybe not less in volume, but less focused. It is a bit hard to simultaneously sustain contrasting narratives like: "He’s a muslim"vs. “His Church of Christ pastor, Jeremiah Wright is crazy and hates whitey”; “He has no experience!” vs. “His experience has a long, reliably far left track-record”. Not to mention that some of the narratives are defused by juxtaposition with McCain: “The Obama family is elitist” vs. “The McCain family has 7 or more houses”; “Obama has no experience” vs. “Palin will be ready on day 1 if need be”.
I think that, ultimately, there is no more anger than usual, but this is the first time since 1996 that Republicans have had to face an almost (not quite but almost) inescapable loss of the White House. I think you may be confounding frustration with anger.
There is almost always enough anger to go around for both parties every time around.
There were much better campaigns. Carter-Ford, Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale were very civil in their tone.
The nastiness started with Bush-Dukakis (enter Lee Atwater), grew to truly ugly levels with Clinton-Bush, improved a little with Clinton-Dole, and then got progressively worse with each following one (enter Karl Rove). 2004 hit a new low with the lies of the Swiftboat Veterans and the mocking of war veterans by the Republicans.
But this is the nastiest, sleaziest campaign I’ve witnessed (unless you consider the GOP scandalmongering throughout the Clinton years to be an unending extension of the 1992 campaign, which it pretty much was). It’s pretty much an orgy of mudslinging, background digging, name-calling, and “Hey, let’s try this one and see if it sticks” smears directed at one man whose background is far cleaner than most politicians I’ve ever seen in my life.
But throughout this, Obama has been civil and stood tall, while McCain, despite his pledge to run a “respectable campaign”, has been reduced to a bottom-feeding mudslinger, inventing scandal where there is none. And to think I actually respected McCain once, and hoped he would be nominated over Bush in 2000.
An Obama win would signal to the GOP that such campaign tactics no longer work. A McCain win would validate them, and we will never see a return to more civil campaigning.
Actually, the anger that was confusing me was the anger coming from regular people and I was most surprised by the anger of people in Forumosa. I don’t see anything to hate about Obama and actually that much to hate about McCain.
I also agree that anger/ fear and hate/ marginalizing are a regular part of many elections but it doesn’t have to be that way. I, too, hope that enough people will support Obama’s non-smearing campaign to show that this hate doesn’t work anymore.
[quote=“Yoman Prince”]Actually, the anger that was confusing me was the anger coming from regular people and I was most surprised by the anger of people in Forumosa. I don’t see anything to hate about Obama and actually that much to hate about McCain.
I also agree that anger/ fear and hate/ marginalizing are a regular part of many elections but it doesn’t have to be that way. I, too, hope that enough people will support Obama’s non-smearing campaign to show that this hate doesn’t work anymore.[/quote]
Don’t be too quick to confuse anger with passionate stances. Many of those who are “arguing” for their guy online, are pretty level-headed IRL.
IMO they just are more passionate about the issues that are at stake in this election than the people themselves.
Where are the libertarians to argue that both sides of politics want to limit individual freedoms, just different types of freedoms? At the end of the day, telling me how to spend my money, and telling me what I can’t do with my own body (alone or with another) are both about telling me how to live my life, and I don’t give a rodent’s earlobe whether the person doing it is doing it in my interest, the public’s interest or anyone else’s interest. Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin.
