You "Want Your Country Back"? Take It and Go (or, why the South Must Secede Again)
Jonathan and Gail-Tzipporah are gracious in rebuking Jimmy Carter for indicating that racism is behind a certain amount of the feverish rage against Barack Obama. Too gracious. Behind the constant cries of "I want my country back" and demands that the president not "brainwash our children" is a subtle but real insinuation that teabaggers never imagined a black liberal could oversee this culture-war-ravaged landscape.
No, opposition to Obama need not be based on race or xenophobia. Opposition to Bush wasn't.
But it's telling that the South has consistently been at the forefront of opposition to Obama. A majority of Southerners have expressed doubt that Obama was born in this country, whereas only around 10% of Americans in other parts of the country share such doubt. Even Republicans as a group don't demonstrate such a high rate of birther views.
Carter knows this issue perhaps better than Jonathan or Gail-Tzipporah do, because he grew up in that still-divided region. I say we've given the South enough time to civilize itself: Now let it secede, so that it birthers can "have their country back." Let them be our crazy Southern neighbor rather than our brethren. Let their progressives and minorities apply easily for visas to this great, pluralistic nation if they are so inclined. But let the rest to their own sad devices.
This is a little "extreme" coming from the great middle-of-the-road guy. All kidding aside, if they were "extremists" for talking about secession, then you're being an "extremist" for offering to show them the door, no? What's this prejudice you and Jonathan have against Southerners anyway (he can't even stand to listen to Mr. Carter!)... As for your "teabagger" comment, the reason people are saying they want their country back is because it appears it's being run into the ground, financially speaking. This doesn't have as much to do with the culture wars as with the irresponsible insanity masquerading as leadership in Washington. (And YES, Bush started it, okay. He just wasn't as adept at shoving us into the toilet near as fast as our current leader.) As for the presidential speech to the kiddies, there was never anything offensive about "hey kids, stay in school." However, for those who cared enough to look into it, there was a whole lot wrong with the DOE's lesson plans that initially went out to schools nationwide. An outcry erupted, the lesson plans changed. I simply fail to see why these nuances are so difficult for liberals to grasp, and why they insist on mocking the Right for opposing... well, certainly not for what they were really opposing. Of course a straw man is a much easier target to knock down.
Perhaps we should do what we should have done back in 1862 and just expel them. We would at least have someplace to send people into exile, like Diane.
Who's "we," David?
Ah, that's really the big pictures question, isn't it.
Diane - I'm beginning to think you may be a paid operative of the lunatic corporatist Right-wing fringe, whose job is to make this forum so obnoxiously unbearable that no one will want to participate. In a market the size of L.A. this should be a hot-bed of debate with a plethora of people jumping down your throat, but because you personify pit-bull determination to always get the last word, coupled with your twisted view of reality, your monstrous ego and your need to be right no matter how wrong you are, there are few with the stomach to put up with your crap. You may now have your monopoly back, and you can rest assured that there are very few participating in it because you are here. I know that in three months I will be able to drop back in for a look and it will only be the same, unless there actually is a loving god that will do to you what he should have done to a tin pot corporal in the land of Wagner and Goethe.
Cheers to you, to, David!
Oh and to clarify.
I'm not a paid operative. I wish I was! Wouldn't that be the coolest?! Well anywho, I don't think anyone is getting paid very much for THIS blog, since there don't seem to be a lot of readers. And I find this interesting. Seems like the liberal types, for all their talk about civilized debate, actually don't want any debate at all. Jonathan, Earl, et al, don't bother to comment back at all, and Jonathan claims it's because "we don't agree." But here's the rub: They say something, I make an argument the other way, and they seem to have no response for it! Case in point: health care. I have said several times that, as has been pointed out by many GOP types, you could solve a huge portion of the "health care crisis" by actually eliminating government intervention that is preventing the free market from working, and then companies would have a powerful incentive to serve customers they currently have no interest in serving (including those with pre-existing conditions). Just like that, much of the problem solved. Simply, easy, and no cost to the taxpayers. I have put this solution out on this blog several times and none of the esteemed writers here ever has a comment on it. They are too polite to respond with nothing but rude insults (like SOME people... ahem), but... it's as if they don't really have a good argument against it!
In short, David, I also find it interesting that your idea of a "hot-bed of debate" is "a plethora of people jumping down" my throat -- as opposed to a plethora of people with diverse ideas, arguing those ideas on their merits.
David, perhaps you can explain to me why a section of the country which had just voluntarily separated itself from the Union and whose menfolk were dying by the thousands in an effort to remain separated would require expelling? In the spirit of your suspicions about Diane being a paid corporatist operative, I'm similarly tempted to think that perhaps you are a "useful idiot" planted here by the totalitarian left, except that I can't for the life of me figure out what anyone would think you're useful for.
In any case, I would point out as further proof of your inadequacy as an idiot, that there actually was an expulsion order issued in 1862...by General Ulysses S. Grant, on behalf of the enlightened, progressive collectivists of the North--your forerunners, David. Grant's "General Order No. 11" called for the expulsion of all Jews from Grant's geographical area of operations in Tennessee, Kentucky, and northern Mississippi. It seems a black market in cotton had sprung up there and ol' "Unconditional Surrender" suspected the Jews "and other unprincipled traders" (i.e. "corporatists," in the modern Marxist formulation) of being behind it. Sound familiar, David? Looks like General Grant was about 150 years ahead of his time. You leftist, anti-Semitic bigots and racists are just now progressing to where he was then.
P.S. Unlike you, both I and Extremist Central are quite pleased with the job Diane is doing. in fact, she has just been approved to receive her salary bonus of $13 million dollars for services rendered to the Conspiracy. Don't worry, though. It's all covered by FDIC, so the taxpayers (i.e. "the rich") will be picking up the tab. Woo woo! The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: Too Big to Fail.
Mr. Newland, can you please clarify where your very serious charge of anti-Semitism against David comes from...?
Hmmm. Again, with all the venom that has spewed forth from David... your concern is with the "very serious charge" that Mr. Newland leveled? Interesting emphasis.
Both of you talk smack to each other. Calling each other idiots is one thing. But a charge of anti-Semitism is a third-rail matter.
I disagree. Whether it's incivility or outright lying, everyone should be playing by the same rules. Otherwise it's just political correctness.
Diane, don't flatter yourself. I'm sure you think you're just plain-speaking in the manner that you ridicule others' arguments, but I doubt they see it as civil. And again, a charge of anti-Semitism is a serious one that merits a bit more clarification, which I wish Mr. Newland would offer.
Not sure Mr. Newland was entirely serious, and not sure he's still around to discuss. But in any event, Rob, it is pretty much impossible to engage in a discussion about anything if one is overly sensitive to one's ideas being "ridiculed." AGAIN... not to bring the topic back to health care but... how was it ridiculing anyone to bring up an alternative idea? An idea, I might add, that nobody's responded to? In any event, Rob, I invite you to immediately bring to my attention, from here on out, anytime you feel I am being "uncivil" in my discussion. I genuinely do not wish to bring offense to anyone. However, when incivility is constantly on display, it is challenging to engage in a discussion without getting one's hands dirty, so to speak. You yourself have been guilty of same. So I expect you might catch me out some time. One only hopes you would hold everyone to the same standard.