WashingtonTimes: Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

[81artmonk]

Some who are equating this to violence are just as much to blame as the wackos. IMO he talking a civil war between the govt and the people.

Right now as it stands the dems have basically stated that they want this healthcare bill regardless of what they are hearing from their constituants.

It's not just a few either. They are willing to ignore the will of the people in order to pass something "THEY" want.

When most of the polls are pointing to most americans not wanting this, and ignoring them and doing it anyway, it's basically political suicide.

If this does pass, I do believe there will be a figurative civil war between the people and their non-representitive representitives. Not a literal violent type.

[redskins59]

You're moving the goalposts, here. Your initial oversimplification was shot down (with no response from you, I noticed ), so now you're moving on to something else.

My initial post I don't think implied that anti-gay marriage and pro life were the only two social issues that Ron Paul opposed. They were merely two examples that I gave. What matters is the vote, not the justification. What I'm saying is, Ron Paul might very well justify his vote against civil rights using libertarian logic and what not, but that justification doesn't matter in the end because his vote indicates to me that he is a social conservative.

Many conservatives would justify how they voted on social issues using logic that sounds libertarian. That doesn't make them libertarian. It's the vote that counts, not the thought process.

[Koolblue13]

Paul personally is very socially conservative, he just doesn't find the need to make laws that would have me act the same way. He just does onto others.....

[Destino]

Some who are equating this to violence are just as much to blame as the wackos. IMO he talking a civil war between the govt and the people.

Right now as it stands the dems have basically stated that they want this healthcare bill regardless of what they are hearing from their constituants.

It's not just a few either. They are willing to ignore the will of the people in order to pass something "THEY" want.

When most of the polls are pointing to most americans not wanting this, and ignoring them and doing it anyway, it's basically political suicide.

If this does pass, I do believe there will be a figurative civil war between the people and their non-representitive representitives. Not a literal violent type.

lol OK if you say so.

[SparkleMotion]

I recall reading an opinion piece, about 10 years ago.

It said that, in keeping with the grand national tradition of getting ready to fight the last war, that the political parties have been assembling forces with which to fight the last economic war.

That the next economic war (one which had already started) wasn't between labor and business (the two "sides" which the Parties were basing all of their rhetoric on), but between big business and small business.

(And, he said, that one side had already won that war, with the government's help.)

That's interesting. In light of the events of the past year, I think the author was probably right.

This whole bailout/TARP episode has been a damn-the-torpedoes strategy to keep big business afloat by fleecing the little guys in broad daylight.

Bush, the supposed free-market conservative, started it. Obama, the liberal/socialist who professes no love for big business, continued it. Something doesn't add up. And I think it has more to do with the compliance of our politicans/government than it does with the evils of capitalism.

[alexey]

"A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

-Thomas Jefferson

Last year's election was it. Now the govt is slowly being brought back to sounds health.

[Koolblue13]

Bush, the supposed free-market conservative, started it.

haha. But he started it.:hysterical:

Big evil Bush.

(Clinton did big business better than any PotUS in history)

[techboy]

What I'm saying is, Ron Paul might very well justify his vote against civil rights using libertarian logic and what not, but that justification doesn't matter in the end because his vote indicates to me that he is a social conservative.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian! We have been duped! People must be informed!

Quick, to the Wikipedia page! Edits away!

[Baculus]

I see it as well,and it is a small minority(not unlike the conspiracy crap you endorsed) that encompasses all political parties.

Is there really more of it ,or is it more visible as a result of O and co using it as a excuse?

There is definitely more of it. Without a question. Apparently, though, it's becoming politically correct to ignore it and to behave like it isn't there.

It is, and only a blind man would miss it.

I certainly agree there is a fringe element in society,but I fail to see it embraced or even highly represented.

So, all that ranting and raving by Glenn Beck, one of the highest rated news shows, isn't "embracing it"? Or high profile members of the Republican party embracing these views, ranging from 'secessionist" to "Birther" points of view, isn't embracing it either?

The GOP are playing with fire, because they are playing up these views.

Maybe you are getting so used to it that you don't even realize that it is being embraced. Even you, yourself, embrace "death panels," regardless of a lack of evidence for this position. This position is wildly popular among the town hall protesters and even repeated by Sarah Palin, a leading figure for the 2012 election.

The "death panel" believe is not wildly held by most moderate, main stream folks. It just isn't.

Well perhaps they embraced the Dem admonition to never let a crisis go to waste?

So much for personal responsibility. "It's their fault we are acting so crazy!" "We have no responsibility for our inability to use ration or reason!"

More likely it is simply a result of the instability they see in both their finances/economy and the direction of the country.

The town hall concept and the embrace of liberal tactics of protest simply give a more visible platform ...WITH the help of the administration

I can agree with this to a certain degree: During times of instability, people often to look for the fringe for answers. We saw this after 9-11 and during the Iraqi War. With that it mind, it's part of the reason why people want to believe the various Obama rumors and theories.

A lost election. Economic crises. A black liberal in office. Times are changing and people don't know what to do, and easy answers become more believable.

[Baculus]

Some who are equating this to violence are just as much to blame as the wackos. IMO he talking a civil war between the govt and the people.

That doesn't make any sense.

Right now as it stands the dems have basically stated that they want this healthcare bill regardless of what they are hearing from their constituants.

MILLIONS of their constituents WANT health care reform. It is a little tiresome to hear folks ignoring this fact. In fact, recent polls have suggested that a MAJORITY of Americans want reform of some sort.

A bunch of loud people does not make a majority. Compare this to the peace protests in which hundreds of thousands of people marched. Did the Bush administration listen to them? No.

It's not just a few either. They are willing to ignore the will of the people in order to pass something "THEY" want.

THEY WERE VOTED INTO OFFICE BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The Democrats very clearly had a platform of health reform, and they won twice in two years.

It is amazing how a party, voted into office, supposedly isn't a demonstration of the "will of the people."

When most of the polls are pointing to most americans not wanting this, and ignoring them and doing it anyway, it's basically political suicide.

Americans want reform. You are ignoring this fact to fit. Again, Democrats were voted into office, with health care reform as one of their party platforms.

That was the will of the people.

If this does pass, I do believe there will be a figurative civil war between the people and their non-representitive representitives. Not a literal violent type.

Rubbish. Right-wingers do not represent the millions of Americans who want this to go through. You're taking the position of the anti-reforms, who want to retain the status quo, to represent the rest of us.

It doesn't.

[Baculus]

But you are a strange individualist.

I think they have a party endorsed cure for that;)

Yeah, as if the Republicans are that cure. LOL.

[SparkleMotion]

You're missing the point -- you almost have it, but not quite. That is one the inherent flaws of capitalism: exploitation. Exploitation of relationships.

The flaws aren't created by government -- they are often enabled by government.

That is one factor of it, but you are missing the billions in profits which is being made. And this dates back to the early part if the 20th century. Read Robert M. Lafollette's speeches during his opposition to World War I. Read Smedly Butler's "War is a Racket." The corporate body uses the military to further their aims:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Yes and no. And, again, you are ignoring the power goals of the monopolists.

You have it backwards. These policies are the result of crony capitalistic aims. First, they have an objective: expand business, increase profits. Second, they have a means to achieve this objective: Lobby members of Congress. Gain influence and back-room sweet-heart deals.

Both sides try to gain an advantage and a profit from the relationship. This is why the English Crown and the East Indian Trade Company had a mutual relationship.

Also, you are are totally ignoring the anti-trust laws which were passed during the Progressive period BECAUSE of crony-capitalism. This laws are not intended to kill competition and the "little guy" -- it was meant to increase competition which is killed by monopolies, aka "trusts."

And that is why they are missing the point. You can't blame only the farmer who is filling the trough for the pigs: You also have to blame the pigs, themselves. To blame government while ignoring the capitalist monopolies is missing one side of the argument.

BTW, all of this was discussed during the 19th century by socialists. They were very critical of the capitalist-government power enabling relationship.

I certainly blame the farmer more than I blame the pigs for going after the swill. The pigs have got to eat. If the farmer didn't overfill the trough and give the pigs such a comfy life, maybe they wouldn't be quite the fat, smelly, vile and disgusting creatures that they are.

[alexey]

They are willing to ignore the will of the people in order to pass something "THEY" want.

These people are doing what they promised to do when they were running for office. This is what we, the majority, want to happen.

[twa]

So, all that ranting and raving by Glenn Beck, one of the highest rated news shows, isn't "embracing it"? Or high profile members of the Republican party embracing these views, ranging from 'secessionist" to "Birther" points of view, isn't embracing it either?

The GOP are playing with fire, because they are playing up these views.

Maybe you are getting so used to it that you don't even realize that it is being embraced. Even you, yourself, embrace "death panels," regardless of a lack of evidence for this position. This position is wildly popular among the town hall protesters and even repeated by Sarah Palin, a leading figure for the 2012 election.

The "death panel" believe is not wildly held by most moderate, main stream folks. It just isn't.

Since I don't watch Glenn Beck perhaps I am missing out on the full range of the phenomena.:whoknows:

Not sure what your objection is on the secessionist or birther talk,you believe it is all that popular? :yawnee:

As far as the death panels I do definitely have a opinion there

Perhaps the reason it is not more widely held is the misdirection some of ya'll apply to it?(though any rational person can see both the need and foundation for it in the house bill...imo of course)

Kinda like the civil war term here...We see what we want to see.

[Special K]

Go back and look at the title of this thread, then tell me if his post was over the top.

Oh, I forgot, your contribution was "pansy-ass whining from liberals". Never mind.

Correct, that is my contribution. I babysat my 2-year old niece all day yesterday, so I'd reached my threshold of whining.

You're right though, I really should expand it to pansy-ass whining from liberals and conservatives.

Really, we are acting though like there wouldn't have been similar unrest and protests had McCain won this election...that's ridiculous. Hollywood would have had a meltdown if McCain had been victorious. That would have actually been more entertaining to watch than the crap movies they pump out of there...

Instead, Obama won and the whackos on the right are pissed. So, maybe we can be a little bit more realistic and admit there are wackos on BOTH sides and the "self-victimization" and "woe is me" attitude is getting tiresome. BOTH SIDES ARE WHACKED. Our country was divided going into this election, it's going to be divided coming out of the election no matter who won.

And to answer your question, no, his post wasn't over-the-top. I never said it was. I simply expressed my opinion about whining. Fringes on both sides suck.

[twa]

Yeah, as if the Republicans are that cure. LOL.

Why would I endorse a cure I've never taken?

I would love to see both disbanded,and a open system of election.

[Baculus]

Since I don't watch Glenn Beck perhaps I am missing out on the full range of the phenomena.:whoknows:

Oh yeah. Picture Alex Jones on cocaine, and there you have it.

Not sure what your objection is on the secessionist or birther talk,you believe it is all that popular? :yawnee:

Hmm, I guess I don't relish the idea of a civil war. But hey, I am crazy like that.

As far as the death panels I do definitely have a opinion there

An opinion that you have embraced, regardless of any reality. Plus, I stll don't understand why you agitate about it. You've never fully explained that.

Perhaps the reason it is not more widely held is the misdirection some of ya'll apply to it?(though any rational person can see both the need and foundation for it in the house bill...imo of course)

Kinda like the civil war term here...We see what we want to see.

Misdirerection? Oh, you mean when I post the EXACT language of the bill?

Oh, that sneaky misdirection of mine, using facts and figures!

When people are talking about secession, and taking back the government, what do you think they mean?

I have been doing a lot of civil war reading of late, and it is the same language used in 1850s and the time period leading up to the first states to leave the Union.

[Baculus]

Why would I endorse a cure I've never taken?

I would love to see both disbanded,and a open system of election.

I would be fine with that. Unfortunately, for good or bad, the party system is here to stay and stems from the 18th century.

Here is the irony -- there used to be a Democratic-Republican party. If people from 200 hundred years ago could see us now, they would be either amused or befuddled.

[Baculus]

I certainly blame the farmer more than I blame the pigs for going after the swill. The pigs have got to eat. If the farmer didn't overfill the trough and give the pigs such a comfy life, maybe they wouldn't be quite the fat, smelly, vile and disgusting creatures that they are.

The desire has to be there in the first place. Never mind the fact that monopolies will expand regardless of government, which simply makes such expansion that much easier.

It's silly to only blame the farmer when the pig is the one that's chowing down. It's a tendency to excuse away capitalist behavior all in the name of supporting an ideology. It's like a socialist who excuses away the worst excesses of state socialism or Marxist-Leninism.

This is why I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I don't believe business can do no wrong. I do not believe that when business goes wrong it's because of just government. It's a parasitic, mutual relationship.

[Larry]

Not sure what your objection is on the secessionist or birther talk,you believe it is all that popular? :yawnee:

:secret:Roughly half of all Republicans either claim that Obama is not a "natural born citizen", or that they aren't sure.

When half of a political party believe loony ideas, then the loony ideas do define the party.

(And frankly, this isn't a new phenomenon, either. Remember how many Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein actively assisted in 9/11, and that our military had found WMDs in Iraq?)

[ACW]

I certainly blame the farmer more than I blame the pigs for going after the swill. The pigs have got to eat. If the farmer didn't overfill the trough and give the pigs such a comfy life, maybe they wouldn't be quite the fat, smelly, vile and disgusting creatures that they are.

:applause: Lobbying's just the symptom; the disease is big gov't.

[twa]

:secret:Roughly half of all Republicans either claim that Obama is not a "natural born citizen", or that they aren't sure.

When half of a political party believe loony ideas, then the loony ideas do define the party.

(And frankly, this isn't a new phenomenon, either. Remember how many Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein actively assisted in 9/11, and that our military had found WMDs in Iraq?)

The problem there is wording in polls

I'm not 'sure' he is a natural born citizen myself,but that is the assumption I start from going by the evidence.

Our military DID find WMD's in Iraq,just not the large quantities professed to be there.

I think Saddam had active relations with terrorists(which MAY have included some of those behind 9/11)

Details matter, which is my objection to House bill 3200...not enough detail leaves the mind free to make assumptions.

Creating framework and blanks to be filled in later is similar to a Rorschach test....you see what you want to see.

[Larry]

The problem there is wording in polls

I'm not 'sure' he is a natural born citizen myself,but that is the assumption I start from going by the evidence.

Our military DID find WMD's in Iraq,just not the large quantities professed to be there.

I think Saddam had active relations with terrorists(which MAY have included some of those behind 9/11)

So, I point out a list of untrue things that many Republicans believe, (as evidence of my point that it's not just a tiny lunatic fringe that believes these things), and your response is that you believe all of them, too?

[twa]

I would be fine with that. Unfortunately, for good or bad, the party system is here to stay and stems from the 18th century.

Here is the irony -- there used to be a Democratic-Republican party. If people from 200 hundred years ago could see us now, they would be either amused or befuddled.

:saber:

[twa]

So, I point out a list of untrue things that many Republicans believe, (as evidence of my point that it's not just a tiny lunatic fringe that believes these things), and your response is that you believe all of them, too?

I can't help it if you are delusional