Republican protesters openly admit using racist imagry

[Queequeg]

The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.

As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.

And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.

We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet.  I wonder how many Birthers and Tea Party-ers will be in the next Republican administration (that is, if they aren't all dead of old age, which they hopefully will be the next time the Republicans take power).

[garbon]

We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet.  I wonder how many Birthers and Tea Party-ers will be in the next Republican administration (that is, if they aren't all dead of old age, which they hopefully will be the next time the Republicans take power).

Yeah, having Dems across the board has just been fabulous.

[Martinus]

The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.

As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.

And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.

Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?

[Martinus]

The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.

As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.

But the racist nutjobs are alienated - nobody takes them seriously. They aren't like the moveon wing of the left.

This isn't about a kooky fringe - it is about the left trying to label simple opposition to the president as racism. The fact that there might be some crazies out there is irrelevant.

Even the nutty religious right isn't particularly racist.

How do you know this?  And why are they able to be equated with moveon.org

They aren't equated - that is the point.

Moveon is the nutty wing of the left, but they are still certainly part of the left, and a powerful part.

The racist whackjobs who have signs with Obama dressed up like a witch doctor are not part of any actual portion of the Republican party. They are just some fruit loops out there. The left has them as well, like all the people who were swearing that Bush was going to have a coup or something.

This isn't about them though - this is about Carter and Seedy and JR trying to convince everyone that in fact the run of the mill members of the party are all double secret code racists, and that is why they don't like Obama.

The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?

[Martinus]

Anyway, while what Americans consider "moderate" is different from the rest of the world, I think it is worth mentioning that, whereas your "extreme" left would bring you closer to what European "moderate" left is, your "extreme" right would bring you closer to what Iranian "moderate" right is.

So I guess it is up to you - what extreme is worse - being like Europeans or being like Iranians.

[garbon]

Anyway, while what Americans consider "moderate" is different from the rest of the world, I think it is worth mentioning that, whereas your "extreme" left would bring you closer to what European "moderate" left is, your "extreme" right would bring you closer to what Iranian "moderate" right is.

So I guess it is up to you - what extreme is worse - being like Europeans or being like Iranians.

Maybe you should go back to bed and try again on Monday.

[Razgovory]

The only reason the racism card can be used to try and silence moderate opposition is clearly shown in this thread. And that is the fact that the moderate right treat the nutjobs along the lines of "hey dems leave them alone just because they are racist they can have valid opposing views too" whereas in fact they should be the very ones yelling at those cocksucker rednecks to stop that nonsense which only pollutes every reasonable criticism one might have.

As long as the moderate right refuses to alienate from the far right, the views of the two will be rightly handled as a single one.

And, yet, the reverse isn't true. The moderate Democrats aren't lumped in with the far left when they refuse to alienate themselves from some whacked out view.

We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet.  I wonder how many Birthers and Tea Party-ers will be in the next Republican administration (that is, if they aren't all dead of old age, which they hopefully will be the next time the Republicans take power).

Take a look at some of Bush's guys.  Guys like Ted Olson were knee deep in Clinton conspiracy theories.

[Sheilbh]

The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?

I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme.  However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.

[CountDeMoney]

The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?

I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme.  However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.

That's because the Republican extremes have more money and fundraising abilities.  Nothing opens up the checkbook than pictures of dead foeteouses on a Sunday morn.

[Neil]

The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?

I don't think that the Republicans are that extreme actually, but then I don't think the Democrats are that extreme.  However, I think the Republicans are slightly more at risk from their extremes than the Democrats, which seems to be the opposite of the languish conventional wisdom.

That's because the Republican extremes are numerous and willing to donate and organize.  The Democratic extremists are less of a danger to take over the party because nobody can take over the Democratic Party, they can only try and keep it from flying apart in a thousand different directions.

[Sheilbh]

That's because the Republican extremes are numerous and willing to donate and organize.  The Democratic extremists are less of a danger to take over the party because nobody can take over the Democratic Party, they can only try and keep it from flying apart in a thousand different directions.

I think this is right, and, more importantly, the Republicans will also not donate or organise and not vote (or field a new primary candidate).  I wonder if it it's because the Republicans have an ideological base - the conservative movement - and have had that since Goldwater.  In that time it's grown in strength.  The Democrats seem more like an old-fashioned trans-national coalition of different specific groups with different interests and different agendas.  But that does mean that the Democrats like the ideological power that a successful intellectual movement can provide - a la Irving Kristol, Chambers, Buckley and so on.  The Democrats are too fractious for something like that, they'll always need a coalition-building approach to idelogy.

[Strix]

Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?

I think you are though. I don't get the connect between the Republicans being racist and Obama being compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Are you trying to say that mainstream Republicans are making those statements? Do you even understand what is being discussed?

[Hansmeister]

Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?

I think you are though. I don't get the connect between the Republicans being racist and Obama being compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Are you trying to say that mainstream Republicans are making those statements? Do you even understand what is being discussed?

This is Martinus you're talking about.  If it's not about gays he doesn't really understand a discussion.

[Queequeg]

Are you serious? Obama has been compared to Lenin, Stalin and Hitler after he unveiled plans for his moderate health care reform. Are you living on a different planet or something?

I think you are though. I don't get the connect between the Republicans being racist and Obama being compared to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Are you trying to say that mainstream Republicans are making those statements?

[Queequeg]

In that time it's grown in strength.  The Democrats seem more like an old-fashioned trans-national coalition of different specific groups with different interests and different agendas.  But that does mean that the Democrats like the ideological power that a successful intellectual movement can provide - a la Irving Kristol, Chambers, Buckley and so on.  The Democrats are too fractious for something like that, they'll always need a coalition-building approach to idelogy.

I think there have been times of greater and lesser Democrat idealogical unity.  The New Deal, and the thirty years after it, saw the Democrats functioning as a far more coherent idealogical unit with a far more developed idealogical base. 

Also, it is worth remembering that the Republican idealogical unity today came out of the post-Depression Republican party that couldn't do anything but bitch while the Democrats transformed the country.  I don't think it is impossible that we are in a similar situation now, especially as my/our generation will remember how awful the Bush administration was for the rest of our lives.