Politics of Christian hate: 'Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8'

[Oliver]

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

A nice sentiment? Maybe not...


The psalm reads:
“Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”
“Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

[full source (http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d18-Politics-of-Christian-hate-Pray-for-Obama-Psalm-1098)]


I have no idea how viral that slogan/bumper-sticker is, but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself. :D:p

[A.A. Alfie]

I'm curious. How do you know they are Christians?


Additionally, it seems you have put up a false argument; it is 109.8 only that is referred to in the 'bumpers' etc and not 109.9

109.8 “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” Is this disgusting? This is all they are saying and not

109.9 “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.” This sure is..

[paiute]

I have no idea how viral that slogan/bumper-sticker is, but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself. :D:p

Conservative tears make Baby Jesus laugh.

[P.J. Denyer]

It is pretty clear in context what 'Let his days be few' means. Okay, you may be charitable and say that many of those with the bumper sticker may be ignorant of the context and think it refers to 'term in office', but only if they bought the sticker without looking up the quotation and really don't understand the language of the bible. Such a get out shouldn't be avaliable to the originators.

All in all it strikes me as a petty bit of nastyness.

[Mr Clingford]

Some conservative American Xtians should be ashamed if they are suggesting the following verse.

[DJW]

I find it difficult to get worked up about a bumper sticker.

[Darth Rotor]

I have no idea how viral that slogan/bumper-sticker is, but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself. :D:p
Only if you put that phrasing on your bumper sticker, in that context, should the issue of being a bit red faced come up. Obama is a self-identified Christian.

Your ploy, on the other hand, in asserting collective guilt, is an echo of Hitler's collective guilt accusation for all Jews.

Nice play, Oliver. :rolleyes:

[Hux]

When you view some of the venom enclosed on the placards by the Teabaggers at the rallies, it palls this bumpersticker into insignificance.

They equate Obama with Hitler amongst many other offensive slogans. What is it with these people? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Americans, in general, do not want their Presidents to fail? This is especially baffling since you just suffered eight years of the most stupid twat on the planet.

But for anyone, by extension, to wish these specific things onto their Chief Executive is frankly appalling. Can the sensible, decent element amongst you here tell me if there is a suspicion of racism involved in these unprecedented attacks on your President?

[Pure Argent]

When you view some of the venom enclosed on the placards by the Teabaggers at the rallies, it palls this bumpersticker into insignificance.

They equate Obama with Hitler amongst many other offensive slogans. What is it with these people? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Americans, in general, do not want their Presidents to fail? This is especially baffling since you just suffered eight years of the most stupid twat on the planet.

But for anyone, by extension, to wish these specific things onto their Chief Executive is frankly appalling. Can the sensible, decent element amongst you here tell me if there is a suspicion of racism involved in these unprecedented attacks on your President?

Yes, there very much is. There is also quite a bit of Republican resentment - the GOP doesn't like many of Obama's changes.

[Hux]

As an outsider I can see that. Is the GOP the natural home of racism?

[Mr Clingford]

I'm not so sure it is racism but maybe more the fact that Hussein Obama wishes to murder babies and doesn't wish to execute teh sodomites.

[Hux]

I was truly amazed by some of the invective posed on those posters at the tea Parties. I trust these are very marginal people; Id hate to think that was the majority view of the GOP.

[Oliver]

They equate Obama with Hitler amongst many other offensive slogans. What is it with these people? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Americans, in general, do not want their Presidents to fail? This is especially baffling since you just suffered eight years of the most stupid twat on the planet.


"Pray for Bush: Ecclesiastes 10:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+10:3&version=NIV)"

[Darth Rotor]

"Pray for Bush: Ecclesiastes 10:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+10:3&version=NIV)"

Praying for bush is the commong hobby of teenaged boys.

[Oliver]

As an outsider I can see that. Is the GOP the natural home of racism?


Well, from a historical point of view, conservatism tends to be just that. Yes.

[Darth Rotor]

When you view some of the venom enclosed on the placards by the Teabaggers at the rallies, it palls this bumpersticker into insignificance.
Yep.
This is especially baffling since you just suffered eight years of the most stupid twat on the planet.
Mugabe was not our president.
But for anyone, by extension, to wish these specific things onto their Chief Executive is frankly appalling. Can the sensible, decent element amongst you here tell me if there is a suspicion of racism involved in these unprecedented attacks on your President?
You have already made your conclusion, based on your question.

Clever? No.

Unprecedented?

You know jack **** about American political history. I invite you to take a look at the vitriol and rhetoric of the first twenty years of our republic. The teaparty crowd are pikers.

DR

Do not circumvent the autocensor.

[Hux]

Praying for bush is the commong hobby of teenaged boys.

Just teenagers?

Dont get further up yourself. I asked a simple question based upon an outsiders curiosity. Since you havent had a coloured President before, Id say the question of racism against the President is unprecedented. Unless you can take the time to advise me otherwise.

[slingblade]

Humanity never seems to get far from the playground. It never fails to amaze me.

[Magyar]

As an outsider I can see that. Is the GOP the natural home of racism?

I would never suggest that it was an exclusive home, but yes, by every measure the GOP is the natural home of American racism, sexism and bigotry in general.

[Hux]

the GOP is the natural home of American racism, sexism and bigotry in general.

That's bad enough. I couldnt imagine it was exclusive - at least I would hope not.

I was appalled by some of the overt hatred displayed on those placards. Has any president been equated with Nazis? Some of it was just downright lies - much like the assumptions republicans choose to make about the Uk's N.H.S. What percentage of the teabaggers do you reckon these people represent? I hope it is only a few?

[Magyar]

You know jack sheet about American political history. I invite you to take a look at the vitriol and rhetoric of the first twenty years of our republic. The tea party crowd are pikers.

DR

I do have to agree with this! If you look at political rivalries like Hamilton and Burr or the stuff that went on with Lincoln the teabaggers are not that far off.

What I do have to point out is that I am not aware of such an open and sometimes blatant and sometimes veiled - as in this bumper sticker which omitted listing 109:9, IMHO, only because they were too cowardly to come out and say it, - suggestions for killing/assassinating the president.

Along with the flat out statement from Limbaugh that I think represents a large part of the Teabaggers if not most of the conservative end of the spectrum in outright stating that they want Obama to fail - AT ALL COST to the county.

[Mister Agenda]

When you view some of the venom enclosed on the placards by the Teabaggers at the rallies, it palls this bumpersticker into insignificance.

They equate Obama with Hitler amongst many other offensive slogans. What is it with these people? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Americans, in general, do not want their Presidents to fail? This is especially baffling since you just suffered eight years of the most stupid twat on the planet.

But for anyone, by extension, to wish these specific things onto their Chief Executive is frankly appalling. Can the sensible, decent element amongst you here tell me if there is a suspicion of racism involved in these unprecedented attacks on your President?

You can always generate a suspicion of racism. Certainly there's a racist element happy to show up at a protest rally against Obama's policies.

As far as being unprecedented, maybe the size of the rallies is unprecedented. The rhetoric is practically traditiional. I suspect if you google 'george bush chimp' or 'george bush hitler', you will find similar examples of vitriol.

I don't care for the hatred we frequently show our presidents, they're just men, imperfectly stumbling along like the rest of us.

[Hux]

Thank you for that. I had no idea Bush had been equated to Hitler. But of course it would not explain the racism towards Obama. I am under no illusion that the American people for the most part want Obama to succeed, for if a President 'succeeds' so does the country. But the hatred on those posters was shocking.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, from a historical point of view, conservatism tends to be just that. Yes.

From a historic perspective the Democrat party was the home of racism, while the Republican party support rights for African Americans. Even in the sixties, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats, the bill wouldn't have passed without Republican support.

To its credit, the Democrat party changed direction and to its shame the Republican party accepted disaffected Democrat racist congressmen in order to get more Repbublican bodies in Congress. It's interesting to note that it's the Democrats who still have a former KKK member in office.

I can remember when it wasn't clear which party was the conservative one.

[Madalch]

Thank you for that. I had no idea Bush had been equated to Hitler.

There was a Ted Rall cartoon decrying the comparisons between Bush and Hitler. He then went on to point out that Hitler actually won his election, was literate enough to write a book, and invested heavily in infrastructure instead of just war preparations.

[Hux]

So was the teabagger parties largely Republican/ conservative or were there large bodies of democrats there?

I can see it from the point of view of your media. It would appear that Democrats want Health care review and all the rest pay lip service to it but want to leave well alone. So it is characterised as Obamas laws. Is this correct?

[Madalch]

From a historic perspective the Democrat party was the home of racism, while the Republican party support rights for African Americans. Even in the sixties, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats, the bill wouldn't have passed without Republican support.

This is easily explained by the fact that Lincoln was a Republican, so those people in the south who regretted the outcome of the Civil War would naturally form the Democrats in that part of the country.

[Hux]

Has any President been subjected to the hatred of that particular bumpersticker?

[Shalamar]

Throw it back at them:

Pray for Republicans
Pslam 109:8

[bokonon]

I saw one this morning, not especially hateful, but still managing to mingle politics and religion. I "know" it came from a Christian because he also had a fish sticker on his tailgate.

American flag waving on the left side. On the right side

I put my hope in God
Not in a man

[FreshHat]

Pray For Obama?

I Pray For Mojo.

[Elizabeth I]

I was truly amazed by some of the invective posed on those posters at the tea Parties. I trust these are very marginal people; Id hate to think that was the majority view of the GOP.

They are very marginal. The trouble is that there are a number of "commentators" - Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al. - who are more than willing to take advantage of those extreme opinions and demagogue that sector of the population, raising the frequency, volume and shrillness of their outbursts.

I will not say that Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Hannity and the rest are conservatives because in my opinion they have highjacked the conservative label as surely as the fundamentalists have highjacked Christianity and Islam. A lot of us who used to call ourselves conservatives have simply stopped self-describing that way because of them and their works. And they're a BIG reason why moderate Republicans are deserting the party in droves. In fact, I believe that they, along with Sarah Palin, bear a lot of the responsibility for John McCain's defeat in 2008.

[Mister Agenda]

This is easily explained by the fact that Lincoln was a Republican, so those people in the south who regretted the outcome of the Civil War would naturally form the Democrats in that part of the country.

I'm sure the majority of Democrats who were hard-core racists were Southern Democrats.

Republicans also pushed for voting rights for African Americans and attempted the repeal of Jim Crow segregation laws. Interestingly, despite this, a majority of African American voters joined the Democrat party while it was still strongly racist, at least from the Southern contingent...presumably due to Democrat support of unions at the time.

[Mister Agenda]

Has any President been subjected to the hatred of that particular bumpersticker?

I don't think so, you would probably have to be a bumper sticker historian to know for sure, but this is the first I ever heard of it. One wonders if the next verse is meant to be implied.

My family runs Pentecostal. There is a contingent that considers Obama the herald of the antichrist, if not the antichrist himself, so I can't be surprised by bumper stickers like this. Similar was said about Kissinger and Hitler, which seems rather unfair to Kissinger. These people are always looking for signe of the apocalypse and signs of the antichrist, but I think their opinion in this case has more to do with Obama's position on abortion than on his skin color.

If Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice were president, the Right would be fawning over them and declaring any opposition to be racism.

[wolfgirl]

I saw a guy on TV a couple of nights ago that used to be heavily involved in the xian evangelical movement but has gotten better. His take on this particular phrase (they showed it on T-shirts, hats, etc., not just bumper stickers) is "code" to a certain brand of fire-breathing xians. He calls it "trawling for assassins," meaning they put out something like this that might appeal to someone on the far fringe and just crazy enough to think that this gives them some sort of justification for violence. Then when that crazy someone does something - well - crazy, they can stand back with their hands up and say, "Well, we never told anyone to do anything like that!"

Much like the anti-abortionists who voice all the hateful rhetoric in the world, then say they had nothing to do with it when somebody takes their point a little too far and shoots an abortion doctor.

He seemed to think that this sort of thing is going in a very dangerous direction.

[Darth Rotor]

Just teenagers?

Dont get further up yourself. I asked a simple question based upon an outsiders curiosity. Since you havent had a coloured President before, Id say the question of racism against the President is unprecedented. Unless you can take the time to advise me otherwise.
Coloured isn't the issue, unless you choose to make it so.

[The Fallen Serpent]

...presumably due to Democrat support of unions at the time.This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Labor rights may be a more practical immediate concern then segregation and voting rights. Presumably the African-Americans were voting for Democrats once the voting issue was no longer an issue as well. If Democrats were at the time supporting taking voting away from African Americans that would be a different tune. Also there is a matter of how it is framed. It is possible to support someone you may disagree with or even revile on a personal level if it also means supporting an overall policy that you think is more beneficial. I vote Democrat more often then I vote for anything else but I do so as a matter of compromise not because I believe everything they support is the correct action. Otherwise I would never vote because I do not believe any political party or person will be correct all the time.

[The Fallen Serpent]

If Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice were president, the Right would be fawning over them and declaring any opposition to be racism.

I highly doubt either of them would make significant progress for a Republican presidential nomination as the party currently stands. Not for their skin color but for certain views they hold. Condaleeza Rice at the least has been heavily denounced for her Pro-Choice views. Racial prejudice is a difficulty but obviously not an insurmountable one for national public office. Claiming that racism does not account for any of the current vitriol is dishonest at best, but for the most part I do not think racism is the primary source. In my opinion it appears to be more sour grapes and lack of leadership. People can get caught up in doomsaying and a certain amount of anti-intellectualism, paranoia and some false premises about liberalism and socialism has mobilized a very... ignorant subsection of the conservative base. Certain individuals in leadership positions, both media and political, have taken advantage of this and appear to think they can use it to erode the current Democrat upswing in power and influence. This of course heightens the problems. Not that I agree with him on many counts, and not even getting into certain claims he holds too, if more conservatives followed the likes of Ben Stein I think the Health Care and taxation debates woud be quite different.

Still, Obama has brought some of the closet racists out of the woodworks. On both sides of the political aisle. They try to disguise their racism in the cloak of legitimate criticism and it makes it difficult to call foul on these people without appearing to denounce all criticism as rascist. I agree, this would happen with a Republican president as well.

[Darth Rotor]

Claiming that racism does not account for any of the current vitriol is dishonest at best, but for the most part I do not think racism is the primary source. In my opinion it appears to be more sour grapes and lack of leadership.
Hux, please take note.

DR

[Mister Agenda]

What Fallen Serpent said. A good analysis, I think.

[Hux]

Hux, please take note.

DR

I do not believe I suggested otherwise.

Its not the first time I have heard the expression "Sour grapes" when it comes to Obamas administration.

[cwalner]

If Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice were president, the Right would be fawning over them and declaring any opposition to be racism.

Just as they did in 2008, often labelling criticism of Palin as sexism.

[Skeptic]

They equate Obama with Hitler amongst many other offensive slogans. What is it with these people?

Probably the same thing that was wrong with the "Bush is Hitler" folks -- exaggerated sense of self-importance and the belief that the more angry they are, the more right they are.

I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Americans, in general, do not want their Presidents to fail? This is especially baffling since you just suffered eight years of the most stupid twat on the planet.

Well, "The most stupid twat" view was mostly and enthusiastically received by people who wanted Bush to fail in everything, heart failure included. So you answered your own question -- yes, many Americans want their president to fail miserably, especially if he's from the other side.

But for anyone, by extension, to wish these specific things onto their Chief Executive is frankly appalling.

Huh? I don't see the point. They want him to be few days in office and have someone else in his place. Why is this more appalling than the desire of every opposition party? It's a clever use, actually, of the common English translation of a biblical verse to mean something quite different than what it means in the original context.

Can the sensible, decent element amongst you here tell me if there is a suspicion of racism involved in these unprecedented attacks on your President?

Unprecedented?

Have you seen any of those "anti-war" protesters during Bush's term? By the way, the war is still going on, yet the protesters are gone, which shows that they really were anti-Bush, not anti-war.

Bush is not alone. Not only are such attacks not "unprecedented", they're small change compared to what some presidents in the past -- of both parties and of every opinion -- had suffered.

[Minarvia]

Deleted

[ParrotPirate]

The thing about these idiots (teabaggers,birthers,ultra conservative dimwits,etc.) is that they think it's fine for them to spew this kind of anti-government,anti-President crap, but if anybody did the same when their boy Georgie II was in office it was "unpatriotic and un-American. They are total hypocrites.

[Elizabeth I]

By the way, the war is still going on, yet the protesters are gone, which shows that they really were anti-Bush, not anti-war.

Not in my town. There is a small but dedicated group which regularly stands on what they say is the busiest street corner in town with anti-war signs and T-shirts. Sometimes they hand out literature and I think they sell bumper stickers.

[A.A. Alfie]

The thing about these idiots (teabaggers,birthers,ultra conservative dimwits,etc.) is that they think it's fine for them to spew this kind of anti-government,anti-President crap, but if anybody did the same when their boy Georgie II was in office it was "unpatriotic and un-American. They are total hypocrites.

Looking at your politics (USA) from a long long way away, I would say both sides are hypocrites.

[daenku32]

...but only if they bought the sticker without looking up the quotation and really don't understand the language of the bible.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Conservative Christian would quote the Bible without having actually read it.

Added a link for and update on the craze:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/19/pray-obama-psal/

[imjohn]

Looking at your politics (USA) from a long long way away, I would say both sides are hypocrites.
You would be correct, sir.

[Skeptic]

I think in this case the "outrage" from the left is manufactured.

The reason psalms 109:8 was chosen was obviously because it (in the most common English translation) mentions the wish that "let another take his office". It's intended as a barb, not a desire to murder. There are numerous better-known and more explicit verses that could have been used if that were the intention.

Tempest in a teapot.

[Skeptic]

The thing about these idiots (teabaggers,birthers,ultra conservative dimwits,etc.) is that they think it's fine for them to spew this kind of anti-government,anti-President crap, but if anybody did the same when their boy Georgie II was in office it was "unpatriotic and un-American. They are total hypocrites.

Quite true. Of course the hypocracy cuts both ways: remember how "dissent was the highest form of patriotism"? That was so until January 20th, 2009, it seems.

[Oliver]

Looking at your politics (USA) from a long long way away, I would say both sides are hypocrites.


Mhmm, taking recent developments into account, it's strange that the "historically racist Democrats" chose Obama as their nominee and the Republicans hypocritically replied by electing Steele as the GOP's chairman.

However, I missed that Democrats attacked Bush in the same disdainful and lunatic way as Republicans attack Obama. IMHO.

[Aepervius]

I think in this case the "outrage" from the left is manufactured.

The reason psalms 109:8 was chosen was obviously because it (in the most common English translation) mentions the wish that "let another take his office". It's intended as a barb, not a desire to murder. There are numerous better-known and more explicit verses that could have been used if that were the intention.

Tempest in a teapot.

But usually praying should be intercession in someone's favor, this is the first to me that an intercession in someone's disfavor is acceptable as prayer. That sound to me as even more deeper than any sort of hypocrisy of the people doing it, the underlying mindset. And that is not a tempest in a teapot but a deeper problem on the side of those endorsing such "negative praying".

Now if they were praying "let it be no consequence on America if Obama was doing something wrong" that would be fine, but "let him get replaced ASAP" leaves a bitter aftertaste.

[Oliver]

Given the religious flavor of this thread, I might also point out that the "religious branch" rather supports the conservative political stream since GOP-politicians tend to be the ones who involve God as much as they can to further their agenda.

[Mr Clingford]

But usually praying should be intercession in someone's favor, this is the first to me that an intercession in someone's disfavor is acceptable as prayer. That sound to me as even more deeper than any sort of hypocrisy of the people doing it, the underlying mindset. And that is not a tempest in a teapot but a deeper problem on the side of those endorsing such "negative praying".

Now if they were praying "let it be no consequence on America if Obama was doing something wrong" that would be fine, but "let him get replaced ASAP" leaves a bitter aftertaste.
Perhaps they think the people that they are praying in favour of are the American people and all those unborn people they think Obama wishes to murder. I don't think it would be wrong to pray for the end of Mugabe's reign in office.

[Oliver]

Perhaps they think the people that they are praying in favour of are the American people and all those unborn people they think Obama wishes to murder. I don't think it would be wrong to pray for the end of Mugabe's reign in office.


While comparing Obama to Mugabe might lead to an accusation of racism, :p the current conservative woo about Obama's socialism/fascism is completely over the top in contrast to the factually legitimate concerns about the Bush policies since 9/11.

[Mr Clingford]

While comparing Obama to Mugabe might lead to an accusation of racism, :p the current conservative woo about Obama's socialism/fascism is completely over the top in contrast to the factually legitimate concerns about the Bush policies since 9/11.

We in the UK have been surprised at the depth of emotion and nastiness expressed, for instance, in the furore over the health care debate. The facts appeared to have little to do it. I didn't know that if Stephen Hawking had lived in the UK then we would have killed him decades ago!

[Oliver]

We in the UK have been surprised at the depth of emotion and nastiness expressed, for instance, in the furore over the health care debate. The facts appeared to have little to do it. I didn't know that if Stephen Hawking had lived in the UK then we would have killed him decades ago!


Well, the astonishing part of that is the fact that the US Media isn't willing or capable to establish hard facts opposing the "mainstream nuttery". The reason for that deserves an own thread for sure, but let's face it: The UK is an Obama brown-nose social-communist pro-terrorist-Muslims atheist Country anyway. :p

[cwalner]

Perhaps they think the people that they are praying in favour of are the American people and all those unborn people they think Obama wishes to murder. I don't think it would be wrong to pray for the end of Mugabe's reign in office.

Hmm, I wonder how many European Jews during the 1930's and 1940's prayed for the end of Hitler's control of Germany.

Please note: I am NOT trying to compare Obama to Hitler and I do find the prayers mentioned in the OP to somewhat over the top. I am simply agreeing with Mr. Clingford that there are situations in which praying for a leader to leave office is not an overall bad thing.

I strongly disagree that the US under an Obama administration is such a situation.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, the astonishing part of that is the fact that the US Media isn't
Since "the media" is/are not a single, monolithic entity, you ought to stop using that term, as it exposes the stupid in your thinking, and the inherent bias in your posts.

DR

[Beerina]

109.9 “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.” This sure is..

It's interesting that this is only important insofar as evolution is valid. Or in worldviews with mountain gods who emphasize the metaphysical importance of patrilinear dynasties.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm curious. How do you know they are Christians?.....Because this is all over the right wing Christian web sites.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only if you put that phrasing on your bumper sticker, in that context, should the issue of being a bit red faced come up. Obama is a self-identified Christian.

Your ploy, on the other hand, in asserting collective guilt, is an echo of Hitler's collective guilt accusation for all Jews.

Nice play, Oliver. :rolleyes:I realize, DR, a lot of the attacks on the right wing Christian Evangelicals offend you, but you do little for your cause by attacking the messengers. I think most of us know not all Christians are right wing Evangelical fundies. You really don't need to keep pointing that out.

Your message would be a lot more powerful if you'd just cite a few links to Christian web pages that condemn the fundies. You sound like the Muslims who are angry at being accused of being terrorists. What people want to see are Muslims condemning terrorists more prominently. And I realize it is an uphill battle for them since their condemnation doesn't automatically make the news. But regardless, that is what people need to hear if they are going to recognize every god believer is not a Muslim terrorist or an assassination promoting Christian fundy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As an outsider I can see that. Is the GOP the natural home of racism?Actually, yes, it kind of is. The white racist element in the South used to be part of a Democratic stronghold. But when the Democratic Party embraced civil rights and desegregation, a lot of white Southerners changed to the Republic* Party. The right wing Republic Party has become the white Evangelical party after Rove, et al, recruited that group and made their social issues part of the Republic Party's base. Abortion and gay marriage bring out voters and the Republic Party has specifically courted these one issue voters. Racism is a side effect of courting these voters.

[Skeptic Ginger]

They are very marginal. The trouble is that there are a number of "commentators" - Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al. - who are more than willing to take advantage of those extreme opinions and demagogue that sector of the population, raising the frequency, volume and shrillness of their outbursts.

I will not say that Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Hannity and the rest are conservatives because in my opinion they have highjacked the conservative label as surely as the fundamentalists have highjacked Christianity and Islam. A lot of us who used to call ourselves conservatives have simply stopped self-describing that way because of them and their works. And they're a BIG reason why moderate Republicans are deserting the party in droves. In fact, I believe that they, along with Sarah Palin, bear a lot of the responsibility for John McCain's defeat in 2008.If the radical right are such marginal figures in the Republic* Party, why don't the supposed 'normal' conservative majority get a little louder expressing themselves? Look at the Republics*. They spout a unified opposition to anything Democratic regardless of the content and rarely if ever speak out against their fundy base.

[Travis]

While comparing Obama to Mugabe might lead to an accusation of racism, :p the current conservative woo about Obama's socialism/fascism is completely over the top in contrast to the factually legitimate concerns about the Bush policies since 9/11.

Actually, claiming that Bush policies post 9/11 were something to have "factually legitimate concerns about" is an example of the Left acting like Lunatics. I am from the Left and I never had concerns about those policies and viewed those that did with extreme contempt. Bush's policies were no closer to "Fascism" than Obama's are to "Communism" and using those terms to describe their respective policies is just another example of how people destroy the meanings of terms through hyperbole.

I mean heaven forbid an actual communist or fascist rise to power in America because we'd have to invent new terms to describe them in order to differentiate them from all the other so-called "communists" and "fascists."

[A.A. Alfie]

Actually, claiming that Bush policies post 9/11 were something to have "factually legitimate concerns about" is an example of the Left acting like Lunatics. I am from the Left and I never had concerns about those policies and viewed those that did with extreme contempt. Bush's policies were no closer to "Fascism" than Obama's are to "Communism" and using those terms to describe their respective policies is just another example of how people destroy the meanings of terms through hyperbole.

I mean heaven forbid an actual communist or fascist rise to power in America because we'd have to invent new terms to describe them in order to differentiate them from all the other so-called "communists" and "fascists."

Well said.
Nominated

[Ethnikos]

It could be wishful thinking about Mrs. Obama becoming a widow,
but that is what some people think is going to happen.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about
the pres. maybe having lung cancer.
It was Webster Tarpley, you can download the podcast at
http://gcnlive.com/podcast/world_crisis/pcast.php
get 1121092 and go to about forty minutes into that hour of his show.
We might end up with Joe Biden as president, yet.

[gtc]

But regardless, that is what people need to hear if they are going to recognize every god believer is not a Muslim terrorist or an assassination promoting Christian fundy.

It is absolutely impossible for someone to prove that they are not a terrorist or that they do not support the assassination of Obama.

Which is why courts have the concept of innocent until proven guilty and, in everyday conversation, we have the concept of the 'benefit of the doubt'.

People who don't accept those two concepts are unlikely to be swayed by anything DR has to say (no matter how eloquent and correct he usually is).

[Elizabeth I]

If the radical right are such marginal figures in the Republic* Party, why don't the supposed 'normal' conservative majority get a little louder expressing themselves? Look at the Republics*. They spout a unified opposition to anything Democratic regardless of the content and rarely if ever speak out against their fundy base.

What did you not understand about:

And they're a BIG reason why moderate Republicans are deserting the party in droves. ?

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Bush's policies were no closer to "Fascism" than Obama's are to "Communism" and using those terms to describe their respective policies is just another example of how people destroy the meanings of terms through hyperbole.....Fascism is the wrong adjective to describe the dangerous direction the Bush administration took the country. However, there were parallels. Many many more parallels in fact, than Obama's supposed communist or socialist goals for the country.

Cheney and Bush conspired to significantly increase the powers of the President, they ignored long term laws and traditions of separation of church and state, of the Constitutional balance of power, they let regulatory bodies die an unfunded death of attrition. Rumsfeld with Bush's blessing singlehandedly moved to privatize the military in a huge way.

These were not minor changes in the way this country has traditionally operated and the Bush admin acted on its own. Obama has mostly acted so far through Congress, not in spite of Congress.


With Obama, there has been no such overall moving of the country to the left. Aside from the bailout (not born out of Obama's goals and philosophies) you have only one segment of the economy being moved toward socialism, that is health care and it has barely moved an inch so far. The view that health care should be in the same category as police and fire as far as public services go, is not an anti-capitalist position any more than the position police and fire services should be public is an anti-capitalist position.

On the other hand, the left had every reason to object and fear the consequences of Bush privatizing the military without any authorization from Congress and of Bush's almost total disregard for the rule of law if it got in his way. There were specific acts Bush did that support this view, it wasn't a fabricated nebulous threat. There are no equivalent Obama acts the right wing can cite to support the views of the extremists among them claiming Obama is changing the country to socialist or communist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What did you not understand about: [moderate Republicans deserting the Party]

?What I don't understand is why is there still a significant Republic* Party power bloc in the Congress. Why is there not a single independent voice among them? Why do they all fall in lock step behind the talking points doled out to them in their Party memos? Why are none of them offering up ideas of their own rather than simply whining like braying sheep about the evils of Obama and the Democratic Party caucuses?


In other words, what you are saying is they are capable of leaving the Party, but they are not capable of speaking up from within the Party. Why not?

[The Shrike]

I've really tried amidst the "teabagger" and "birther" nonsense to be objective about the level of vitriol directed at Obama. I thought the Bush Administration was an 8-year disaster, and I was thrilled when Obama was elected last year, primarily because the tone he set (for example with respect to foreign policy) made sense and was exactly the opposite of what Bush had done.

So as someone who was hypercritical of W from day 1 - and who is an academic surrounded by many students and faculty who share that perspective - I can tell you that our rhetoric against him was merciless. We accused him (and the larger Republican machine) of stealing the 2000 election from Gore, criminally ignoring the warning signs of global climate change, being inept in the face of Hurricane Katrina, not being very "commander-in-chiefy" on 9/11, being an idiot who refused to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, pissing off allies the world over with his cowboy diplomacy, etc. You get the picture.

But never - never - in these conversations did the rhetoric rise (descend?) to the level of wishing bodily harm come to the man. While I'm sure we can find some examples of over-the-top Bush hatred, it's not something I remember experiencing firsthand. A buffoon? Yes. Disastrous policies? Yes. But none of this anti-christ vitriol we've seen leveled against Obama.

So I think there is a fringe in this country who've been told (so they believe!) that Obama is something far worse than just a president espousing polar opposite policies to what they want. They truly believe that he is evil, that he is bent on some kind of world domination, and that his election portends the second coming of Christ. The problem is that this "fringe" is fed twice a week from the pulpits, all day long from the radios, and every evening at home on Fox news.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is absolutely impossible for someone to prove that they are not a terrorist or that they do not support the assassination of Obama.

Which is why courts have the concept of innocent until proven guilty and, in everyday conversation, we have the concept of the 'benefit of the doubt'.

People who don't accept those two concepts are unlikely to be swayed by anything DR has to say (no matter how eloquent and correct he usually is).Who said anything abut proving one was not one of the extremists? I'm talking about more loudly condemning the extremists, not simply whining that one is being painted with too broad a brush.

DR has posted more than once his disdain seeing Christians criticized in this forum as if they were all homogeneous clones. I'm pretty sure most people here know that and it goes without being said. Instead of defending against criticism one falsely sees as personal, DR should recognize people are not accusing every single Christian or Muslim of being an extreme fundy just because we fail to point that out every time criticism and Christian are posted in the same sentence.

It would help the moderate Christian cause a lot more to address the Christian fundies than to defend themselves against broad brush persecution that doesn't really exist.

[Maia]

Not in my town. There is a small but dedicated group which regularly stands on what they say is the busiest street corner in town with anti-war signs and T-shirts. Sometimes they hand out literature and I think they sell bumper stickers.

No kidding! The group in Nashville is just as vociferous against the wars/military actions as they ever were, and they don't begin to cut Obama the LEAST bit of slack about anything. However, they're all either my friends or the fringier ones are friends of my brother's, so I spend a lot of time kicking him under the table when they say some of the crazier things and mumbling phrases like "I don't know what planet they think we're living on, but 'Bizarro World' is NOT it." :rolleyes:

[Elizabeth I]

...But never - never - in these conversations did the rhetoric rise (descend?) to the level of wishing bodily harm come to the man. While I'm sure we can find some examples of over-the-top Bush hatred, it's not something I remember experiencing firsthand. A buffoon? Yes. Disastrous policies? Yes. But none of this anti-christ vitriol we've seen leveled against Obama.

[Disclaimer: I voted for Obama.] I'm pretty sure I remember some fairly nasty low-class muttering from the country's non-Republicans about how Alzheimer's couldn't have happened to a more deserving pair than Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston.

Point: Neither political party has an exclusive claim to taking the low road, and very few members of either have any claim at all to class.

[Skeptic Ginger]

[Disclaimer: I voted for Obama.] I'm pretty sure I remember some fairly nasty low-class muttering from the country's non-Republicans about how Alzheimer's couldn't have happened to a more deserving pair than Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston.

Point: Neither political party has an exclusive claim to taking the low road, and very few members of either have any claim at all to class.On the one hand, of course this is true. And I certainly don't support most of the minority fringe lefties. The problem here is we are not talking about a small minority of fringe right wingies. We are talking about large numbers of right wingies. If you take the Senate as a rough example, you have about a 60:40 split. There sure are a lot of bizarre examples in that Senate of right wing fringies.

On the left we have Dennis Kucinich. I wish people would take him more seriously and I'm certainly not embarrassed by him. How can normal Republicans not be embarrassed by Michelle Bachman?

[Darth Rotor]

I realize, DR, a lot of the attacks on the right wing Christian Evangelicals offend you,
No, they don't. I don't much care for Evangelicals.

Pay attention to Oliver's title: Politics of Christian hate
Funny, I don't see any distinction being made there. Par for course. (Plus, I like tweaking Oliver's nose.)

but you do little for your cause THey are not my cause, silly.
I think most of us know not all Christians are right wing Evangelical fundies. You really don't need to keep pointing that out.
BS
Then
but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself
Puts the lie to your protestation of innocence. In your case as well, your actions do not support that comment. Three years of this particular forum, and the generalizations here ... no, sorry, no sale.
Your message would be a lot more powerful if you'd just cite a few links to Christian web pages that condemn the fundies. Since I have no time for fundies, I hardly need to do that. I am not required to foam at the mouth.
As for this feces coming from your lips:
You sound like the Muslims who are angry at being accused of being terrorists.
Please stop with the stupid.

I am not somebody who bitches about why there is no righteous outrage among non-fundy Muslims. If they were all fundy and all about outrage, like yourself (see your foaming at the mouth over Bush and "the world can't wait" not to mention you obsession with Palast's CT) they'd not be Muslim moderates in the first place.

SG, you just did a Pot/Kettle on your own self.

Nice own goal. The world can wait for you to grasp what you just did.

DR

[The Shrike]

On the left we have Dennis Kucinich.

That's kind of where I am too. When I think about who the radical left-wing nutjobs are . . . I usually come up blank. Kucinich is probably as "radical" as we can get, in terms of somebody on the left who occasionally gets the chance to speak to the media about some new and challenging ideas, e.g., world peace, providing food and medicine to the poor, developing sustainable energy . . . you know, crazy non-violent stuff.

But on the right, the Limbaughs/Dobsons/Hannitys/Becks etc. flood the airwaves with their crap every day. They take their rhetoric right to the very precipice of "Grab your torches!" and then break for commercial. As any young man with a chaste girlfriend will tell you, you can only endure so much of that kind of treatment before you have to take matters into your own hands.

[CriticalSock]

That's bad enough. I couldnt imagine it was exclusive - at least I would hope not.

I was appalled by some of the overt hatred displayed on those placards. Has any president been equated with Nazis? Some of it was just downright lies - much like the assumptions republicans choose to make about the Uk's N.H.S. What percentage of the teabaggers do you reckon these people represent? I hope it is only a few?

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?

[The Shrike]

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.

That's what it means here, too. That's why it was so funny when legions of people who turned out several months ago to protest . . . something about Obama* . . . started waging "tea parties," in an homage to one of the greatest political protests American kids actually learn about in history class, the Boston Tea Party. The protesters, largely white, middle class, conservative folks, would wave teabags in the air and call themselves "teabaggers," blithely immune to the snickers of those of us familiar with the term.

*I think their primary beef was the government bailout. A lot of them, however, just attended so they could cry about how they "wanted to their country back." No one I've spoken to knows what that sentiment means unless the intent was "from that black guy."

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?
"Grand Old Party" - nickname for the Republican party.

[fishbob]

Well, "The most stupid twat" view was mostly and enthusiastically received by people who wanted Bush to fail in everything, heart failure included. So you answered your own question -- yes, many Americans want their president to fail miserably, especially if he's from the other side.


Revisionism 101.

We didn't want him to fail.
We gave him a chance, then pointed out his failures.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, they don't. I don't much care for Evangelicals.

Pay attention to Oliver's title: Politics of Christian hate
Funny, I don't see any distinction being made there. Par for course. (Plus, I like tweaking Oliver's nose.) ....

DRYour post illustrates my point. I certainly didn't assume because of Oliver's word choices he was referring to all Christians. I assumed he meant the Evangelical fundies who are actually the ones sporting these tee shirts and bumper stickers.

You have a chip on your shoulder.

[gtc]

Your post illustrates my point. I certainly didn't assume because of Oliver's word choices he was referring to all Christians. I assumed he meant the Evangelical fundies who are actually the ones sporting these tee shirts and bumper stickers.

You have a chip on your shoulder.

You say that you don't assume that it refers to all Christians. However, you demand that Christians denounce fundamentalists lest they be considered to be fundamentalists too:

Your message would be a lot more powerful if you'd just cite a few links to Christian web pages that condemn the fundies. You sound like the Muslims who are angry at being accused of being terrorists. What people want to see are Muslims condemning terrorists more prominently. And I realize it is an uphill battle for them since their condemnation doesn't automatically make the news. But regardless, that is what people need to hear if they are going to recognize every god believer is not a Muslim terrorist or an assassination promoting Christian fundy.

The problem is that you are defending the belief that, unless they can prove otherwise, all Republicans share the views of Rush, all Christians share the views of the fundamentalists and all Muslims share the views of the extremists.

You can see the diversity of beliefs amongst groups you identify with, the left, scientists, feminists etc and would never assume that a black female activist shared the views of Cynthia McKinney for example.

[A.A. Alfie]

(snip)..... but you Christians should be ashamed of yourself. :D:p


All of them aparently.

I get involved in these religious threads only because I am genuinely offended at the overgeneralisations thrust at the Christians (religious). They are easy targets for the haters of humanity and it is this hate-mongering I like to question.
I do not deny their are some 'bad' people within these organisations, however there are 'bad' people in any organisation. None are without sin. But why do these atheists feel the need to denigrate all the many wonderful individuals within Christian (religious) movements?
Most of the time these atheists have self claimed membership of the liberal intelligent elite, yet see fit to ridicule and malign these honest citizens and try and prove their beliefs wrong. Many of these same people will then turn around and defend the human rights of the most vile individuals. Why? - it smacks of the most appalling hypocricy.

Is there some fundanmental flaw in their personal make ups? Personality disorders? Or just a case of very low self-esteem that compels them belittle others?

I have always been curious about this and these threads make me more so.

[TokenMac]

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.Same here that is why it's so funny.

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?

The Grand Old Party

[Andrew Wiggin]

Um, what are "Teabaggers"? Because in the UK it is the term for the sexual act of dipping your scrotum into your partners mouth.

Also, what does the acronym GOP stand for?

That's what teabagger means here too, more or less. That's why the teabagger movement is so funny to those in the know.

GOP means 'Grim Old Parody'.

A