The New Hate?

[The Thriller]

It's called the counter culture revolution.

White Christians have had their panties in a twist since the 60s. Reagan gave them a boost. AM radio and foxnews have been waging this war since the early 90s. It's all coming to a point right now. As the middle-class has disappeared, Latino culture exploded, and gays have gained political clout, conservative white Christians have pushed back even harder. Now, these tea baggers are willing to shut down the government and throw our economy off a cliff. They perceive an enemy, whether it be immigrants, gays, progressives, intellectuals, non-Christians, etc and will do everything in their power to reverse the cultural, social, and political trend that has always been progressing but really became prevalent in the 60s counter culture movement.

 

[Stoked]

It's called the counter culture revolution.

White Christians have had their panties in a twist since the 60s. Reagan gave them a boost. AM radio and foxnews have been waging this war since the early 90s. It's all coming to a point right now. As the middle-class has disappeared, Latino culture exploded, and gays have gained political clout, conservative white Christians have pushed back even harder. Now, these tea baggers are willing to shut down the government and throw our economy off a cliff. They perceive an enemy, whether it be immigrants, gays, progressives, intellectuals, non-Christians, etc and will do everything in their power to reverse the cultural, social, and political trend that has always been progressing but really became prevalent in the 60s counter culture movement.

Hahahaha. Keep on blindly hating.

 

[The Thriller]

Hahahaha. Keep on blindly hating.

If you disagree then disagree and provide evidence. The only person blindly hating is you.

 

[Revolution 9]

Everyone's experience will likely vary.

this

 

[LogGrad98]

So did the GOP shut down the government all by themselves or did they have "help", so to speak? The dems are completely blameless in all of this? Lots has been made of what the GOP had to do to keep the government going, but what could the dems have done?

 

[Stoked]

It's called the counter culture revolution.

White Christians have had their panties in a twist since the 60s. Reagan gave them a boost. AM radio and foxnews have been waging this war since the early 90s. It's all coming to a point right now. As the middle-class has disappeared, Latino culture exploded, and gays have gained political clout, conservative white Christians have pushed back even harder. Now, these tea baggers are willing to shut down the government and throw our economy off a cliff. They perceive an enemy, whether it be immigrants, gays, progressives, intellectuals, non-Christians, etc and will do everything in their power to reverse the cultural, social, and political trend that has always been progressing but really became prevalent in the 60s counter culture movement.

The Democratic Senate was equally willing to shut down the government as they rejected several House proposals. Fact.

But you just want to hit one side. Fact.

 

[sirkickyass]

The Democratic Senate was equally willing to shut down the government as they rejected several House proposals. Fact.

But you just want to hit one side. Fact.

Those are not facts.

The House proposals are designed to either eliminate or neuter the primary domestic policy achievement of the administration. An issue that the President has run on twice and won two elections on. Threatening to shut down the government unless a party votes to repeal its own validly passed laws, laws that you can't get repealed through the normal process because you don't have the votes, is not valid process. It's hostage taking.

If you believe sides are equally to blame then you're either uninformed or willfully ignorant of what's actually happening.

 

[LogGrad98]

Those are not facts.

The House proposals are designed to either eliminate or neuter the primary domestic policy achievement of the administration. An issue that the President has run on twice and won two elections on. Threatening to shut down the government unless a party votes to repeal its own validly passed laws, laws that you can't get repealed through the normal process because you don't have the votes, is not valid process. It's hostage taking.

He ran on the issue of healthcare reform, not the final product of Obamacare, not the same thing.

Also, as I stated elsewhere, if you really think this is the only reason anyone voted for Obama and proves that everyone fully supports Obamacare in its current iteration, well I have a bridge for sale.

And you actually hit on the real issue, IMO, in all of this. The repubs are trying to neuter the president and take out his signature legislation, and the dems are doing all they can to avoid that. Neither are looking at it from the standpoint of what is best for the American people. It is party-line **** all over again.

 

[JimLes]

. Threatening to shut down the government unless a party votes to repeal its own validly passed laws, laws that you can't get repealed through the normal process because you don't have the votes, is not valid process. It's hostage taking.

This. If the Republicans want to repeal any existing laws, it's really easy. Win presidency, win 51 Senate seats. What they're doing is unheard of.

 

[Stoked]

This. If the Republicans want to repeal any existing laws, it's really easy. Win presidency, win 51 Senate seats. What they're doing is unheard of.

No it isn't. It is the same crap that has been going on for years.

 

[sirkickyass]

No it isn't. It is the same crap that has been going on for years.

Examples please.

If you can find another instance of a party using not funding the government entirely as leverage to repeal a law they can't repeal through a voting process I'll be very surprised.

 

[Stoked]

Examples please.

If you can find another instance of a party using not funding the government entirely as leverage to repeal a law they can't repeal through a voting process I'll be very surprised.

I'm talking in a general sense. If you want an exact scenario of this playing out under a republican president I don;t think there is one. Last shutdown was under Clintons Administration.

If Jim meant specifically than he is right.

 

[sirkickyass]

LG:

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.


This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.[/QUOTE]

 

[LogGrad98]

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.



This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.

LG:

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.


This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.

[/QUOTE]

Fixed it. Fair enough. I modded it back.

 

[LogGrad98]

LG:

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.


This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of your points. It has been no secret that is his attempt at a lasting legacy. But I am still of the opinion that Obama will have his way, or else, and the republican will deny him his way, or else.

Also if you get into the history of the law there was a proviso added by a mostly democractic committee essentially forcing everyone to have insurance or pay a penalty. Early iterations which were much more bi-partisan lacked this component. It was when this was challenged by republicans, and the democrats refused to alter it, that the current fights started. That is the basis on which the republicans took it to the supreme court, that it was illegal to force people to participate. The supreme court ruled it was a tax and therefore legal, and Obama quickly changed his position that he would not implement a new tax to fund Obamacare and fully embraced the legality of it being a tax in order to secure the "win". This is also a point when public opinion started to swing against the ACA, but as you said, the fight was already won.

Shenanigans have been going on in this thing on both sides for a long time now, not just in the past few months.

 

[JimLes]

I'm talking in a general sense. If you want an exact scenario of this playing out under a republican president I don;t think there is one. Last shutdown was under Clintons Administration.

If Jim meant specifically than he is right.

Of course I meant specifically. This isn't your regular back-and-forth. This is a party threatening to shut down the country in order to repeal a law they cannot repeal by normal means. It's ridiculous. You can talk all you want about how this is something both parties are responsible for, but the Democrats have never done this.

 

[LogGrad98]

Of course I meant specifically. This isn't your regular back-and-forth. This is a party threatening to shut down the country in order to repeal a law they cannot repeal by normal means. It's ridiculous. You can talk all you want about how this is something both parties are responsible for, but the Democrats have never done this.

If you deeply believe something is morally wrong, how the hell can you compromise? What kind of person does that make you?

 

[JimLes]

If you deeply believe something is morally wrong, how the hell can you compromise? What kind of person does that make you?

A politician. We've been over this. Morality is just a fancy word for intransigence.

 

[LogGrad98]

If you deeply believe something is morally wrong, how the hell can you compromise? What kind of person does that make you?

A politician. We've been over this. Morality is just a fancy word for intransigence.

Agreed.

 

[VINYLONE]

Keep in mind that I am in no way comparing the history of these words/terms beucase lets be honest there is no comparison. Having said that here we go...

Is political hate more intense and divisive right now, in this moment in time, than any other hate or "ism" (sexism, racism, religious bigotry...) in America? Is political hate merely being given different names? Such as racism or communism?

Thoughts?

I think there has always been divisiveness in politics. With the advent of the internet and the ability to rant anonymously without recourse, I think the polarization has intensified and created it's own self fulfilling prophecy.

But to say that the political hate of today is worse than the racism of yesteryear is to ignore reality. You had state sponsored atrocities committed against a group of Americans for quite a long time.