Secession

[Stan Shannon]

Yeah, the pinkos are having a lot of fun with it all. So what? No one expected any thing more from them. They are a non-issue. They are the ones afraid to have a real debate about the constutionality of it all. Simply reasserting the forgotten 10th amendment will prove to be secession enough. Thats the elephant in the room that they keep trying to hide with a little frilly doily.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

John, I am truly unsure of what you were aiming to accomplish by posting that link. It's obvious that this woman either doesn't understand why people would be angry at Washington and its policies or (more likely) doesn't care. It's not clear what point she was making other than the perceived irony of waving an American flag and shouting "Secede!" I note for anyone's benefit who might find this curious that the flag, for many of us, represents an idea and an ideal - not the person or party in power in Washington. There was a concerted effort on the part of a lot of the media not simply to down-play the attendance at the tea-parties (estimates now range from around 270,000 to around 330,000) but actively attack the rallies as if, somewhere along the line people who had applauded the anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's had decided that the right to peaceably protest was no longer a constitutional right. The piece de resistance, for me, was Keith Olbermann and Jeanine Garofalo agreeing that the rallies were pure and simple racism protesting only the election of a (half) black man. Of course, by dismissing it this way, neither of them were required to think about any issues raised by or at the rallies. At any rate, Rick Perry is just another politician trying to figure out which way the people are going so he can scurry to the front and claim to be a leader. The sentiments expressed at these rallies are real. The anger is real. Perry cannot make it more so, nor can Olbermann make it less. And, as I said, the folks in power don't seem to be martialing terribly strong arguments about why the country shouldn't split apart. The lady you linked to certainly didn't offer any.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

the flag, for many of us, represents an idea and an ideal - not the person or party in power in Washington.

Hear, Hear ! And I would add "nor does the major party out of power", echoing Chris Austins point that neither party is on the side of the people, as far as I can see.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

And I would add "nor does the major party out of power", echoing Chris Austins point that neither party is on the side of the people, as far as I can see.

Although they act as if they believe otherwise, it is not the politicians (of either party) that have given us our rights or taught us our duty to this country.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

it is not the politicians (of either party) that have given us our rights

Yes, that would be our creator. But, gee, that implies some principle of purposeful, intelligent design, so obviously that concept has no place in the modern US. :rolleyes:

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Yes, that would be our creator.

Perhaps so. But do you really think He lies awake nights worrying whether or not He was praised enough the previous day - or whether donations were large enough at the myriad of churches, temples, mosques, etc that all claim to speak for Him?

Stan Shannon wrote:

that concept has no place in the modern US

I suggest you reread the history of the enlightenment.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

But do you really think He lies awake nights worrying whether or not He was praised enough the previous day - or whether donations were large enough at the myriad of churches, temples, mosques, etc that all claim to speak for Him?

I really don't concern myself with what "he" does.

Oakman wrote:

I suggest you reread the history of the enlightenment.

Why? Do I have some sort of social obligation to that history?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Do I have some sort of social obligation to that history?

Nope, only an obligation to yourself not to make statements not suported by the facts. Although I guess in the Back Room, that's not the highest priority you have.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Nope, only an obligation to yourself not to make statements not suported by the facts.

So you're suggesting that the declaration of independence was not an expression of enlightenment thought?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Tim Craig]

Stan Shannon wrote:

So you're suggesting that the declaration of independence was not an expression of enlightenment thought?

My interpretation is that he's saying most of what you say here isn't an expression of enlightened thought.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

John, I am truly unsure of what you were aiming to accomplish by posting that link.

The essential point is about the phonyness and hypocrisy of the much-touted patriotism of much of the Republican base. I realise, of course, that people will justify their stance on the basis that they defend the "true ideals of America" or some such. What this means is that they support their country only to the extent that it accords with their ideology. If the left shows a much milder form of such an attitude, then the same Republicans denounce the left as traitors.

Oakman wrote:

There was a concerted effort on the part of a lot of the media not simply to down-play the attendance at the tea-parties (estimates now range from around 270,000 to around 330,000) but actively attack the rallies as if, somewhere along the line people who had applauded the anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's had decided that the right to peaceably protest was no longer a constitutional right.

Hysterical nonsense. Just the sort of thing one hears at the tea parties. No one is challenging the right to peaceably protest. Mockery of said protesters, however, falls under the right to free speech.

Oakman wrote:

The sentiments expressed at these rallies are real. The anger is real. Perry cannot make it more so, nor can Olbermann make it less.

I think a lot of people are real angry that Obama won. I think Krugman's take on the tea parties is, as usual, pretty accurate. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html[^]

John Carson

[Stan Shannon]

Tim Craig wrote:

My interpretation is that he's saying most of what you say here isn't an expression of enlightened thought.

How so? I realize that what he is probably getting at is the notion of 'natural rights'. However, natural rights minus a creator is a dubious concept. Where precisely does one actual see 'natural rights' in nature? Nature obviously provides no 'right to life' for example.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

The essential point is about the phonyness and hypocrisy of the much-touted patriotism of much of the Republican base.

John Carson wrote:

If the left shows a much milder form of such an attitude, then the same Republicans denounce the left as traitors.

This is just the same old 'They started it' argument. As I have said, I didn't buy it from my kids when they weren't even teenagers, I am certainly not buying it from adults.

John Carson wrote:

I think a lot of people are real angry that Obama won

I think a lot of people are really angry that Obama won under false pretenses.

John Carson wrote:

I think Krugman's take on the tea parties is, as usual, pretty accurate.

I hesitate to ask - but did you attend one? Watch extended coverage of one? or is your experience limited to what you read in the NY Times? One of the talking points repeated over and over claimed that every one who showed up at the tea parties were Republican faithful. In fact many people showed up who had voted for Obama, many more who had voted for Ron Paul. Many of the signs at these rallies made it quite clear that their makers agreed with Chris Austin's sentiments as seen in my sig. It is quite clear that whatever Krugman's qualifications are as an economist, he is quite capable of trash-talk as a political hack. It is, of course, "Op-Ed" pieces written by Times employees and supporting the opinions of the editorial staff that helps explain why the Times is being read by fewer and fewer people.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

This is just the same old 'They started it' argument.

No it isn't. The argument is about hypocrisy. The Obama critics were going on and on about him wearing a flag pin, about whether he held his hand over his hand during the saying of the oath of allegiance (or was it the playing of the national anthem --- I forget), about Michelle's comment about being proud of her country for the first time. They promote a "my country, right or wrong" line and viciously denounce anyone who deviates from it. And then they talk about secession. Complete and utter hypocrisy. For what it is worth, I have never been a "my country, right or wrong person" --- regardless of which country we are talking about. I don't fault Republicans for their lack of patriotism on the secession issue. I fault them for their nauseating hypocrisy.

Oakman wrote:

I think a lot of people are really angry that Obama won under false pretenses.

I think that Obama has pretty much done what he said he would do. His commitments on energy, health and the rest were well flagged, as were his tax policies. A collapsing economy has increased the deficit by reducing revenues and increasing expenditures even in the absence of any active policy response and Obama has added to that deficit with a stimulus package --- as the situation required.

Oakman wrote:

I hesitate to ask - but did you attend one? Watch extended coverage of one? or is your experience limited to what you read in the NY Times?

And if I had attended one, what percentage of the tea parties would that one represent? Is one tea party a statistically significant sample? I have read multiple accounts of tea parties in different places and seen multiple videos. On a more parochial level, I have noted the enthusiasm of Mike Gaskey and Stan Shannon for these events and the enthusiasm of others of similar ilk on other forums that I frequent.

Oakman wrote:

One of the talking points repeated over and over claimed that every one who showed up at the tea parties were Republican faithful. In fact many people showed up who had voted for Obama, many more who had voted for Ron Paul. Many of the signs at these rallies made it quite clear that their makers agreed with Chris Austin's sentiments as seen in my sig.

I have read that a lot of attendees

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

The Obama critics were going on and on about him wearing a flag pin, about whether he held his hand over his hand during the saying of the oath of allegiance

Many of whom were Democrats, supporting the woman who is now Secretary of State. Do you fault her naseating hypocracy, too?

John Carson wrote:

I don't fault Republicans for their lack of patriotism on the secession issue.

Interesting. You switch from "Obama critics" to "Republicans" without a blink. There are plenty of Obama critics who are equally critical of the Republicans. The kneejerks who support almost everything that one party does and damn the same acts when done by the other party are the one who show a great lack of patriotism - or a great deal of anti-Americanism when foreigners do it, in my humble opinion.

John Carson wrote:

I have read multiple accounts of tea parties in different places and seen multiple videos

What often happens when people allow others to filter their news for them is that they select their sources in order to read and see what they want to be told. I would hope that you spend at least as much time searching out news feeds that tell you that you are wrong about what you believe to be true. That's why, as much as I despise the POV of the talking heads on MSNBC I make it a point to view some every week. Ditto for Beck and O'Reilly. And while the Washington Post can be informative, ignoring the Washington Times would limit you to all the news the Post thinks you should have.

John Carson wrote:

Being virulently anti-tax is standard fare for much of the Republican base.

Amazingly enough, it was, while Bush was in office, standard fare for the Democrats - it would appear that whichever party is spending the money, the other party attempts to appeal to those who see the stupidity of running deficits year after year. Unfortunately, pandering to pressure groups whether they be the unions or the large corporations tends to be the hole card for the party that is in power.

John Carson wrote:

Ron Paul, by the way, is a Republican who wants to abolish most of the government.

Much of what our government has become in the last 30 years should be abolished. Anyone looking at the results of the

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Many of whom were Democrats, supporting the woman who is now Secretary of State. Do you fault her naseating hypocracy, too?

1. My recollection is that the critics of Obama on this point were almost exclusively Republican. 2. I don't believe that Hillary (or many of her supporters) have been advocating secession, so I'm not sure where you are finding a parallel. 3. I was frequently disgusted by Hillary Clinton's willingness to make any argument that she thought would gain her an advantage. At the start of the primary season, I didn't have a strong preference for Obama vs Clinton, but, more than anything else, Clinton's unprincipled campaigning led to my putting my sympathies with Obama. This was actually a common reaction, as a survey of discussion on left-wing sites at the time will reveal. (I also have a collection of left-wing US friends, one of whom reported to me that, if Hillary won the nomination, many of them were considering not voting for her because of disgust with her tactics.)

Oakman wrote:

Interesting. You switch from "Obama critics" to "Republicans" without a blink. There are plenty of Obama critics who are equally critical of the Republicans.

Only superficially. As I noted in my previous post, much of the base in both parties is more extreme than the leadership, so they often criticise their own leadership. They still think the opposing party is worse. Those too far left to be Democrats can be even more ferocious (I was going to add that the same is true of those too far right to be Republicans, but it is hard to be that far right). The support for Nader that cost Gore the 2000 presidential election is a case in point. Those people criticising Obama on patriotism issues were overwhelmingly on the right and they criticise Republicans from the right, not from the center. Fox News was obsessed with Obama's patriotism.

Oakman wrote:

What often happens when people allow others to filter their news for them is that they select their sources in order to read and see what they want to be told.

Your apparent view that my news sources are more filtered than your own is simply a bias on your part.

Oakman wrote:

Amazingly enough, it was, while Bush was in office, standard fare for the Democrats - it would appear that whichever party is spending the money

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

My recollection is that the critics of Obama on this point were almost exclusively Republican.

Big Fail. Bill Clinton, for instance, has never voted for or supported a Republican in his life. Nor has a large majority of the vitriolic critics of Obama who posted on Hillary44.com.

John Carson wrote:

I don't believe that Hillary (or many of her supporters) have been advocating secession,

You claimed that all critics of Obama = all Republicans. I think I have sufficiently proved you wrong. But it might be noted that many many Hillary supporters advocated starting a third party. Perhaps they are right-wingers in disguise? All 18 million of them?

John Carson wrote:

Fox News was obsessed with Obama's patriotism.

Indeed and Obama's campaign and MSNBC (hard to tell them apart much of the time) were obsessed with McCain's age. I, for one, think that the country's voters should inquire into the patriotism and the age of its presidential candidates. Ignoring either may lead to unpleasant surprises.

John Carson wrote:

Your apparent view that my news sources are more filtered than your own is simply a bias on your part.

I said I hoped they weren't. I still have faith that you have a level head on your shoulders. Perhaps you make the posts you do because the small number of liberals in America need all the support they can get? ;)

John Carson wrote:

Among other things, he would entirely abolish the government social security system. Attitudes to the size of government correlate heavily with party-political allegiance.

Simply abolishing it is counter to everything I believe in since I think that a government should enforce, not abrogate contracts, especially the ones it makes. However, allowing people to opt out in favor of private pensions - as was the case until very recently with all government bureaucrats with the understand that they couldn't opt back in the next time their 401Ks took a nose dive is an option that should be looked at. It is permissible to question the status quo, is it not? If Paul believes other than as I do, at least his beliefs have been articulated - as opposed to Obama's which are being revealed only now.

John Carson wrote:

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Big Fail. Bill Clinton, for instance, has never voted for or supported a Republican in his life. Nor has a large majority of the vitriolic critics of Obama who posted on Hillary44.com.

This is silly. As you well know, we are discussing critics of Obama on patriotism, not in general. Of course Democratic rivals and their supporters criticised Obama during the primary on a range of issues. Any criticisms of Obama's patriotism from Bill Clinton were of the most oblique kind, the product of intense parsing of his words by the media (he referred to Hillary and McCain as two people who loved their country). No careful parsing was required with Republican critics on the patriotism issue. They came after Obama with a baseball bat.

Oakman wrote:

You claimed that all critics of Obama = all Republicans.

Nonsense. That would be an absurd thing to claim. Is Krugman a Republican? However, tea party supporters are overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) Republican.

Oakman wrote:

But it might be noted that many many Hillary supporters advocated starting a third party.

Relevance? What has a third party to do with secession from the US? As it turned out, Clinton supporters eventually got over their disappointment and overwhelmingly supported Obama. That is why he won. I come back to my point, which is the hypocrisy of people who attacked Obama's patriotism and then advocated secession. Those people are overwhelmingly Republican.

Oakman wrote:

However, allowing people to opt out in favor of private pensions - as was the case until very recently with all government bureaucrats with the understand that they couldn't opt back in the next time their 401Ks took a nose dive is an option that should be looked at. It is permissible to question the status quo, is it not?

Sure it is. Nevertheless, Paul's fundamentalist opposition to government places him well to the right of public opinion.

Oakman wrote:

The question in my mind is not whether the government should or should not be a source of short-term liquidity but whether we should make commitments to spending that will not happen for years and which will obligate the government to expend more and more money in the years to come. As Larry Summers put it before he traded his bi

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

Any criticisms of Obama's patriotism from Bill Clinton were of the most oblique kind, the product of intense parsing of his words by the media

Apparently including the Huffington Post: For the last several weeks we have been inundated with statements from the Clinton Campaign (and some media pundits) arguing that their incessant attacks on Obama's patriotism, their use of McCarthyite "guilt by association", and attempts to make Obama look like a "cultural elitist" are all justified because "the Republicans will do it in the fall". [^] Of course, Cramer was trying to defend Obama from these attacks that he characterizes as incessant and you hardly remember. . .

John Carson wrote:

Nevertheless, Paul's fundamentalist opposition to government places him well to the right of public opinion.

You make the same mistake Stan does and insist on tracking all political thought on a 2D line. To suggest that Paul and Limbaugh are similar in any way ignores the vast gulf between them. The public, methinks is instinctively smarter than that.

John Carson wrote:

which is the hypocrisy of people who attacked Obama's patriotism and then advocated secession.

Why is it that people who out and out lie about their concern over high taxes are let off with "insincere" while those who have become angry at what has happened in the last three months are called hypocrites? Why is the Pot so much blacker than the Kettle?

John Carson wrote:

As for the Republicans that would have been prepared to sign on for a different sort of stimulus package, they have been noticeably silent about it.

The original stimulus proposal as sent to the House was hailed by a number of Republicans as something they could support. Then Pelosi threw it out and started over. You may have missed that as you missed the Democratic attacks on Obama's patriotism, but it did happen.

John Carson wrote:

On the other hand, I don't think his desire to see increased spending on education, energy and some other things was any secret.

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Apparently including the Huffington Post: For the last several weeks we have been inundated with statements from the Clinton Campaign (and some media pundits) arguing that their incessant attacks on Obama's patriotism, their use of McCarthyite "guilt by association", and attempts to make Obama look like a "cultural elitist" are all justified because "the Republicans will do it in the fall". [^] Of course, Cramer was trying to defend Obama from these attacks that he characterizes as incessant and you hardly remember. . .

Yes, apparently including the Huffington post. Does that article contain any quotes from Bill Clinton in which he directly attacks Obama's patriotism? No, it doesn't. I remember a great deal of fevered discussion during the primary campaign about what each side was saying about the other. The letters page at Salon.com was a mass of hysteria. Bill Clinton was accused of racism, Obama was accused of sexism...To some extent, there was a duel between Salon.com and the Huffington Post. Salon was pro-Clinton and the Huffington Post was pro-Obama. My point is that if you look at what the candidates (or spouses or on-the-record-spokespeople) actually said, then it was in a completely different league to what was being said by Republicans. Republicans would say that Obama was "palling around with terrorists", that he "hates America" and so on. Moreover, they made a huge issue out of trivia like flag pins, setting a very high bar in terms of an acceptable level of patriotism. Clinton, as far as I'm aware, stayed completely away from the flag pin trivia, and her remarks on issues like Bill Ayers were an order of magnitude milder than the stuff Republicans were saying (though I still think she engaged in a form of guilt by association). And, again, the point I have been making concerns phony and hypocritical patriotism. Hillary Clinton hasn't turned around and started promoting secession.

Oakman wrote:

You make the same mistake Stan does and insist on tracking all political thought on a 2D line. To suggest that Paul and Limbaugh are similar in any way ignores the vast gulf between them.

You have a bad habit of extending my remarks way beyond the context in which they were stated and of ascribing to me opinions that it should be obvious that I do not hold. In an earlier post, I explicitly referred to Paul's opposition to the Iraq war. I am perfectly aware that he is