Army to court martial 'birther' officer

[glatt]

I walked past a tea baggers rally downtown yesterday at lunch. As a result of having just read this thread, I looked over the crowd pretty closely. I didn't see a single face of any color other than white in that entire crowd of maybe 5 thousand. I had a good vantage point on a hill above the crowd. Not sure what that means, but normally you'll see a mixture of faces in any crowd. Not so here.

[Shawnee123]

This guy probably more exemplifies that crowd.

And, couldn't find it on youtube, but here's a hulu clip:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/90671/the-...ased-by-ghosts

[SamIam]

That's interesting, Glatt. There was a t-bag rally in the city park here yesterday, too. If there is one thing you can say about the 4-Corners, its that it is the land of diversity. Sometimes when I go to the laundramat, I'm the only white person in there. Everyone else is Navajo or Hispanic.

But if you looked at the composition of the local t-bag group, it was all white. I know because I was on foot and walked through the middle of the rally. It was bizarre, actually.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is interesting. I don't give those people the time of day. I too have been meeting more and more people with gripes against Obama whom they voted for and the Dems in Congress. I have never heard a racist remark about it but there is a lot of anger out there and they seem to be growing in numbers.

1. Just because you 'don't give them the time of day' doesn't mean they aren't there.

2. Maybe you just aren't hearing the racist remarks. Given your willingness to edit out the people who are likely to be making them.

[Shawnee123]

You can't walk around small town America without bumping a nut on someone who says Obama is a socialist, anti-american, the *n* word...blah blah blah. I usually hear these things right before the person spits on the sidewalk or adjusts their overalls, or spills beer on their "mustache rides" t-shirt. Dumbasses.

[Cloud]

the thing about Obama is he doesn't play by the old-boy network rules. He doesn't necessarily cater to the press or the lobbyists or the collateral lines of power that have been in place for a long time, and that's pissed a bunch of people off. (Makes me happy though). Whether or not the birthers or teapartyists are racist, well--how do you prove a negative? How do you prove hatred?

I certainly do have the impression that many of these people are motivated by racism. Probably Merc was right to call me on it when I called the original birther guy posted about racist, because it's true, I have no proof of that. nothing in the articles I read mentioned a racist motivation. But just because it's "convenient" to attribute a racial motivation to those opposing our president . . . doesn't mean it's not true, at least partially.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

1. Just because you 'don't give them the time of day' doesn't mean they aren't there.

2. Maybe you just aren't hearing the racist remarks. Given your willingness to edit out the people who are likely to be making them.

Or they are in such a minority that they really are not a factor. I certainly edit them out, that is true, but if there were really that many their remarks would be all over the internet both in video and quote. So far there has been very few events, other than the one reportedly made at the Capitol, with thousands of video about and no one could catch the supposed comment. Who knows. But it sure has become a convienient dig. To be honest I have only witness 2 such gatherings and it was in passing. Everything else I have watched is on the internet or TV.

[Shawnee123]

I certainly do have the impression that many of these people are motivated by racism. Probably Merc was right to call me on it when I called the original birther guy posted about racist, because it's true, I have no proof of that. nothing in the articles I read mentioned a racist motivation. But just because it's "convenient" to attribute a racial motivation to those opposing our president . . . doesn't mean it's not true, at least partially.

Funny how he noticed that and called you on it...true or not. I guess it's not OK to call people racist just because they don't like our president, but it's OK to call certain politicians nazi whores, among a million other silly names meant to cast aspersions on the "other party."

IMHO (the acronym of the week) those two notions don't jibe. Seems self-serving, to me, and I'm highly amused at the dichotomy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cloud

the thing about Obama is he doesn't play by the old-boy network rules.

I think he has his own "good ole boy network", it just isn't the traditional one we would associate with that sterotype.

He doesn't necessarily cater to the press or the lobbyists or the collateral lines of power that have been in place for a long time, and that's pissed a bunch of people off. (Makes me happy though).

And that is one thing I really liked about some people in the Bush Admin as well, esp Rumsfield and the way he handled the press. But hey I am a bit more hawkish. Not that is was always the correct way to deal with them but I loved it when he handed them their assess in Q&A press meetings.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Funny how he noticed that and called you on it...true or not. I guess it's not OK to call people racist just because they don't like our president, but it's OK to call certain politicians nazi whores, among a million other silly names meant to cast aspersions on the "other party."

IMHO (the acronym of the week) those two notions don't jibe. Seems self-serving, to me, and I'm highly amused at the dichotomy.

Mere rhetorical frippery...

But they do border on whorish behavior IMHO.

[Shawnee123]

I think he has his own "good ole boy network", it just isn't the traditional one we would associate with that sterotype.

with that "stereotype"?

I'm not being a spelling nazi (hehehehee) I just find that to be an interesting choice of a word.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

with that "stereotype"?

I'm not being a spelling nazi (hehehehee) I just find that to be an interesting choice of a word.

[DanaC]

It's not the 'whore' part of it that's the problem, merc, it's the 'nazi' part of it.

David Mitchell on nazi comparisons and Godwin's Law:

Before you start mouthing off about Hitler, you'd better know your Nazis

I can see why this is handy. A lot of amateur rhetoricians seem to confuse the terms "Nazi" and "nasty" ...[snip]...

The Godwin's law attitude is a well-meaning rule of thumb, designed to discourage abusive and hyperbolic remarks, but we mustn't be seduced into thinking that nothing really is like the Nazis any more – that that kind of evil has passed. When references to fascism and totalitarianism are accurate, just as when a responsible shepherd boy cries: "Wolf!", it's important to pay attention.

All of which just makes me angrier with irresponsible criers of "Hitler!", including both ends of the American political ZX Spectrum (by which I mean the far right and the nearly-as-far right). As many Americans go into a tailspin, coming to terms with the notion that poor people shouldn't be left to die of easily treatable diseases – even though, the USA being such a lovely meritocracy and everything, they must on some level deserve it (and, after all, what incentive is there to make something of your life if it's not the fear of an agonising, peritonitis-induced uninsured demise?) – there's been a frenzy of swastika-slinging.

It started relatively gently with Sarah Palin's dark allusion to almost eugenicist "death panels" being the inevitable consequence of state-sponsored healthcare, but now hysterical bloggers on both sides are labelling each other Nazis more often than they call themselves patriots. One particularly depressing website referred to the vandalism committed by opponents of the healthcare bill to five Democratic offices across the whole country as "Kristallnacht".

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...hcare-mitchell

*ducks for cover*

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

with that "stereotype"?

I'm not being a spelling nazi (hehehehee) I just find that to be an interesting choice of a word.

Yeah. That caught my attention somewhat as well.

[Shawnee123]

Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing.

"Free speech relieves the pressure of discontent in some ways," said Post, who founded the CIA's Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior.

Post said he is concerned, however, about messages coming from the conservative base. Last month, GOP chief Michael Steele called for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be put on "the firing line," and House Minority Leader John Boehner said that a congressman "might be a dead man" because of his health care vote.

"I find some of this rhetoric recently -- 'reload' -- quite scary," Post said of a Twitter post by Sarah Palin directing followers to her Facebook page, which had crosshairs on the districts of 20 congressmen who voted for the controversial health care bill. "Some people are going to hear that as, 'Take up your arms.' "

"The righteous rage then becomes not just a rationalization for threatening rhetoric, but it has the potential of moving people to action," he said.

Therein lies the paradox for a country like the United States, where free speech is guaranteed. It's healthy to allow groups to vent, experts say, but not to the point that they incite violence.

It is disturbing, to say the least, to watch the sheep jump on the sheepwagon of anger and hate.