The Secret Service has noticed that the POTUS is at least partly black, believed to be Muslim and a Socialist. I'm certain that they take the possibilities presented quite seriously.
There are always nut jobs that want to harm the pres because he's a (fill in the blank). I honestly don't think that he's any more a target than any of the other 40+ before him.
Politics and partisanship aside, has anyone considered this...
I think that we would all agree here that there are a LOT of people in this country that are NOT happy that we have a black president, regardless of political affiliation.
So, is it possible that all the rhetoric of the conservative media could have a tragic although UNINTENDED consequence? (I am NOT saying that any of the conservative talking heads are racist or would want any harm to come to the president).
But could all of the claims that Obama isn't an American, or that he's a Muslim, or a socialist, etc. push some Travis Bickel type nutcase over the top and incite him to "do something about it"?
Just a thought...
What pushed Oswald (a Communist) to kill Kennedy
The Secret Service has noticed that the POTUS is at least partly black, believed to be Muslim and a Socialist. I'm certain that they take the possibilities presented quite seriously.
There are always nut jobs that want to harm the pres because he's a (fill in the blank). I honestly don't think that he's any more a target than any of the other 40+ before him.
I'll agree with you that every president has to worry about nutjobs, but I have to disagree that Obama isn't more of a target than previous presidents, and I doubt ANY black member of this forum, liberal or conservative, would agree with you either.
The chances of some nut case getting in a position to where he could assassinate President Obama is very slim. Subsequent to the attempt on Reagan's life by Hinkley a law was passed giving the Secret Service the final word when it comes to presidential security. President Obama said he wanted to jog across a tarmac from Air Force One to a terminal building at an airport. He had to clear it with the senior Secret Service Agent in charge. His request was denied and that was the end of it. The Secret Service is far better trained and equipped since the attempted assassination of President Reagan.
I don't feel race is a factor in the disdain for President Obama. I feel it's his policies. I doubt Michael Steel would encounter as much resistance from the right as President Obama has. For some reason you think being conservative is being racist.
I have met a few liberal racists.
"I don't feel race is a factor in the distain for President Obama." Well, the person who posted the link below, on the RNC Facebook, might disagree with you.
-- Modified on 10/27/2009 3:08:48 PM
American as apple pie. The concept of race is a political concept similar to religion. Both are based on nonsense.
" The concept of race is a political concept similar to religion"
I have NO idea what you meanby that or what point you're trying to make!
If anyone decides to go after Obama I would bet it would be after he was out of office. I think with current technology, you would have to be 15 shades of crazy to go after a sitting president. I really don't think the planet has come up with someone dumb enough to go after a sitting president in today's day and age.
What is it about some people's ability to read. I clearly stated that my post wasn't about politics and I also clearly stated that there were plenty of racists out there on both sides of the political fence...
I do NOT equate conservatism to racism, but for you to think that the color of Obama's skin doesn't affect SOME people's opinion of him, regardless of their politics, is truly delusional and utopian.
Of course you don't feel that race is a factor, and neither do the racists. The current day pathology is generally to find something else to attribute it to. I've seen you make some statements about other races before based on pure stereotypes, so I'm not terribly shocked you said that. The type of anti-Obama rhetoric we've seen isn't simply policy disagreements. There has to be more to it than that. You don't have DISDAIN for a man just because you disagree with the way he's tackling healthcare reform. You'd have to have your head pretty far up your ass to actually believe that.
I will say that liberals are equally capable of being racist, and have been. I don't believe a white President would have as difficult of a time getting the exact same policies through a Dem dominated senate. A different skin color can cause some pretty inconsistent behavior.
This is looking more like 1993-1994 all over again. We had a white President, Democrat controlled Congress, Healthcare, tax increases, blah blah blah, and look what happened during the mid-term elections, and Clinton's move to the center. Once Obama realizes the majority of Americans are moderate, he will move to the center and Obama can be just like Clinton, and the 2nd black president of the U.S.
-- Modified on 10/27/2009 5:14:49 PM
Circumstances are different...there wasn't as widespread agreement that the system needed an overhaul, there wasn't as much urgency involved to fix it, people weren't getting publicly gangbanged by insurance companies they way they are now, and 60% of the population wasn't in support of what Clinton proposed. Flawed comparison.
Irrespective of the various policy initiatives, including healthcare, Obama like Clinton is pandering to the left's agenda. The only difference between 1993 and 2009 is the rancor and lack of civility between the left and right, and the media on both sides feeds into it. Unfortunately for those of us in the middle we don't have much of choice except gridlock. I'm not expecting a "Contract with America" repeat, I'm just saying Dems will lose seats in the mid-term, and Obama like Clinton will have no choice but to govern from the middle.
Was that supposed to go here? I'm talking about racism among dems, you're predicting the results of the midterm elections. Are you senile? My old uncle does this all the time.
-- Modified on 10/27/2009 7:09:09 PM
You said a white president wouldn't have the same difficulties as Obama. well we did have a white, well black in some circles, who proposed some of the same tired old shit with a Democratic controlled Congress. Kinda like your posts. It ain't racism. Same shit, different decade, same results.
Wait....Did you exemplify your inability to see a point and question mine in the same post? I pointed out (rather clearly) the differences between 93 and now as it pertains to racism...and you went off on a tangent about would happen in the midterm elections. What the fuck is wrong with you???
-- Modified on 10/27/2009 7:24:59 PM
do it. I guess race hatred could be a reason. I think the con media don't have much effect on most racists though. Hard core racists are taught by their parents to be racists. Its like being potty trained.
That applies to softcore racists as well. Some deny it because it would be unacceptable to say "yes I'm a racist" aloud, and others actually don't believe that they are. It's a tricky phenomenon.
So let me get this straight zorff... Because I'm applauded that anyone would even want to discuss assassinating a President is "indicative of the problem"? How is that...oh wise sage??? Enlighten me as to how someone thinking it is completely inappropriate to discuss murdering a President "indicative of the problem"??? All eddie is doing is simple “race baiting”!!! It isn’t about what race Mr. Obama chooses to be associated with... It is about people sitting around and discussing his assassination. To me... eddie is way out of line in even opening this thread!!!
There are some pretty unstable people out there; people who will blame all their own failures in life on someone else. This may be by party affiliation, race, etc.
I am not so much concerned about what I would call mainstream conservative rhetoric as I am with the possibility of easy radicalization by extremist groups of people who are economically displaced. Such folks make an easy mark.
This is one reason why there are so many suicide bombers in some parts of the world. Life sucks so badly for them that radicalization is relatively easy. It isn't JUST the ideology -- it is the ideology + fertile environment. Continuing economic displacement could create that fertile environment.
There are about a million ideologies that could conceivably have an issue with ANY sitting U.S. President; ranging from religious factions to environmental extremists and various separatist groups. Any person radicalized by such groups becomes a risk -- not just to the president who is well-protected -- but to the public at large.
It might be worth recalling the daycare center that was shot up by a radicalized supremacist in Chicago.
So I don't think it is the specific content of fairly mainstream ideas that poses a risk as much as extremist ideology when applied to the fertile medium of economic hardship.
used to denegrate Bush 43. But NOTHING compares to the smear campaign against David Petraeus. An honest man, given a difficult job, and termed a traitor to the US.
So, it started a long time ago, and needs to stop, I agree, but on BOTH sides.
fasteddie51
"I think that we would all agree here that there are a LOT of people in this country that are NOT happy that we have a black president, regardless of political affiliation."
Just cuz you "think" it doesn't make it so..I live in cracker red neck country and I have not heard ONE person mention Obama is half Black or that he is half white...I think you have some strange friends or acquaintances that lead you to "think" that people are not happy about Obama because of his tan..or you are easily influenced by whoever is leading you to ignorance..
But Eddie, in your defense maybe you simply hang out with the worst of trash..
As far as your last statement if I was Secret service I would send you to Gitmo for your covert comments to incite Travis crazies to action..
I don't see the humor if thats what you are thinking..
Well, I live in the "liberal" Northeast, and when I go to a diner for breakfast I frequently overhear Obama being referred to as "that nigger".
If you're too dense to realize that there ARE racists who dislike Obama simply because he's black, you don't live in cracker red neck country, you live in La-La Land.
I doubt you even have a clue who Travis Bickel is.
You're an idiot.
-- Modified on 10/27/2009 11:17:53 PM
fasteddie51,"Well, I live in the "liberal" Northeast, and when I go to a diner for breakfast I frequently overhear Obama being referred to as "that nigger"."
"I doubt you even have a clue who Travis Bickel is."
Travis Bickle is imaginary very much like your fantasy world..
I reckon you and your your liberal buddies in your slimy diners just sit there and say nothing when they hear Obama racist talk...No doubt ..Thats why there is no such term as Northern Gentleman ..
The diners in my area would not allow such talk from customers,even if the owners are devout Sarah Palin fans..
I dropped out in ninth grade..Lucky for me as I never had the chance to become brainwashed by Professors,and I never took the LSD that convoluted so many minds, and turned young men into wimps..
NO DOUBT QUAD, Eddie honestly is so closed minded, and dulled by corporate media, HE DOESNT KNOW THE ISSUES, and because he doesnt understand the issues, he honestly thinks anyone who doesnt like obama, is racist...WHEN OUR PROBLEM IS OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST/MARXIST/COMMIE, HIS POLICY CHANGES REFLECT THIS, AND THATS WHY HE ISNT LIKED, EDDIE...NOT BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.
Then Eddie pulls the ''lefty'' bullshit, and instead of discussing ANYTHING, we brought up for discussion, attacks us personally...GROW UP EDDIE
-- Modified on 10/28/2009 12:54:37 AM
I realize this post is the equvilent of mental masturbation, but here goes. While I cannot speak for others, I'm fairly confident that many would agree with the following...
First, EVERY single post you make is single-minded and intractable. No offense, but you're a one-trick pony... you see conspircy in EVERYTHING, all leading to a New World Order of Global Domination. Even posts that have nothing to do with that, you manage to steer into a discussion of.
Second, and I realize this is like trying to teach Calculus to a third-grader, but Obama CANNOT be a "socialist/marxist/commie"... Although similar and connected, there are distinct differences between Marxism, Socialism and Communism, so it's tough to be all three at the same time. It would be like calling someone a republican/democrat/whig. They are ALL subsets of the basic American political philosophy but differ in their interpertation of our Constitution and our political structure.
It's exactly the same with Marxism, Socialism and Communism:
Marxism, derived from the philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, have three primary aspects: the dialectical and materialist concept of history; the critique of capitalism; and the advocacy of proletarian revolution.
Engels' philosophies led to the development of socialism, which refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. In other words, the more labor you expend, the more compensation you receive. It is NOT an "everybody is equal" system.
Communism, which is considered to be a branch of socialism, started with Lenin taking Marx's and Engels' philosophies and interperting them to theorize a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made DEMOCRATICALLY, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Understand, Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system.
TJ, these are PHILOSOPHIES. They are NOT inherently evil, any more than Utopian or Capitalist philosophies are inherently evil. It's the APPLICATION of these philosophies by totalitarian and/or oppressive governments that are evil.
Third, As for me pulling "lefty" bullshit by attacking you personally, let's see... in the same post that you said that, you also said, "Eddie... ...is so closed minded, and dulled by corporate media, HE DOESNT (sic) KNOW THE ISSUES, and because he doesnt (sic) understand the issues, he honestly thinks anyone who doesnt (sic) like obama, is racist".
TJ, it appears that you have a little "lefty" in you too!
To conclude; TJ, I'll try to put this in the kindest possible way, but all of your posts are for the most part rote repetition of things you've heard or read from fairly radical people/books/websites that feed and support your own personal paranoia. If you ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness. If you read my (satiric) post regarding the New World Order, and if you understood it, you'd realize that my whole point was that you can take ANY collection of reasonable and verifiable facts and spin them into whatever conspiricy you choose to.
Please, recognize these uber-right wing, neo-nazi websites for what they are, investigate the history and philosophy of people like Adams, Jefferson, Sartre, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Nietzsche, Sir Thomas More, et. al., make your OWN conclusions and THEN form a legitimate opinion.
Now iff you choose to take this as a personal attack, so be it.
Nothing of the sort; I'm not advocating anything one way or another: I was simply asking a question.
I do not worry about the messenger.
People are responsible for their own actions. There is no telling what will set them off but I damn sure am not going to infringe on one person's liberties because of what the next guy may do.
If we are really worried about people "going ballistic", perhaps we should have a judicial system that actually punishes people. In this country it takes years to execute an individual no matter how damning the evidence of a capital crime!!