Military Coup to Overthrow Obama and his "Marxist" regime?

[MagGnome]

Seriously, can it get any crazier than this?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co .php

I'm tired of hearing this crazy bullshit spouted by people on the far right. I'm also tired of Obama being painted as a "Marxist" or "extreme liberal" when he is neither. As a very liberal/progressive person myself, I don't see Obama as sharing many of my points of view, at least not through his actions so far.

A military coup to overthrow him, how can this even be suggested in a serious manner?

[Spockrocket]

I love how the author seems to have forgotten that this - "the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments." happened during Bush's administration, yet there were no talks of a military coup back then. I think someone's a secret racist :P

[txshurricane]

A military coup would be the most action we've seen from anyone since November 2009. We couldn't be so lucky to have people in our country actually DO something.

EDIT: That was supposed to be cynical of public servants and administration, not pro-coup.

[Narradisall]

The military won't win a coup, from what I hear Obama has bear calvery.

[MachEnergy]

The day after the election, my super conservative coworker came into work really hung over. He said he had to get drunk to avoid a panic attack, because he was so worried about the world his newborn was going to grow up in.....because Obama got elected.

Strangely enough, I'm starting to agree with his feelings, but only because I'm terrified of how far the extremists are going to push their limits.

[Hawkzombie]

I'm just glad I moved to Canada.

[txshurricane]

I'm just glad I moved to Canada.
I've had some serious talks with my wife about something to this effect. To me the U.S. is still the greatest country in the world, bar none...but articles like the one in the OT make me want to evacuate my young family.

[Crowe]

That's just lunacy. A question though, I see a lot of this stuff on the web with news videos and articles and I see all these crazy photos of people calling Obama Hitler and shit like that. It is as bad as it seems or are there only a few people doing this and getting a shit load of air time?

[Crowe]

I've had some serious talks with my wife about something to this effect. To me the U.S. is still the greatest country in the world, bar none...but articles like the one in the OT make me want to evacuate my young family.

Come chill out in Australia, only time you need to evacuate is summer, straight to the beach or river.

You just don't see stuff like here, you don't really here about crazies like this here and we usually just laugh them off.

[BigJonno]

I can't say I follow all this stuff too closely, but it seems to me that there is an extremist "Obama is TEH DEBIL!!!" group and an extremist "Obama is, like, TEH SECOND COMING!!!" group and everyone else is waiting around for him to actually do something spectacularly different from Bush.

[Kelegacy]

The problem isn't Obama and the left, it's the right are now so far right it's getting ridiculous. Watch any of the networks--the "right" commentators and guests are like a hive mind; they spout the exact same buzzwords. A montage of weekend interviews shows this. So when laymen talk about socialism at the watercooler, they have no fucking idea what they're talking about. They heard it from some Republican on Fox News. They don't even get the urge to look up what socialism really is. Because Obama it is NOT.

Keep up the good work, Right. Keep brainwashing your homeschooled kids. :)

[txshurricane]

That's just lunacy. A question though, I see a lot of this stuff on the web with news videos and articles and I see all these crazy photos of people calling Obama Hitler and shit like that. It is as bad as it seems or are there only a few people doing this and getting a shit load of air time?
Where I live, there are a LOT of people actually saying things like that. I talked to a former Marine who was the cargo surveyor on a ship earlier this week...he made some conservative-minded comments that sparked a conversation, and he ended up literally spitting while he spoke about fascism and government conspiracies. This guy was a supposed black belt in Judo and had a small arsenal at his home (according to him); I felt worried, and I'm an over-armed conservative myself...

One example of many.

[Crowe]

Where I live, there are a LOT of people actually saying things like that. I talked to a former Marine who was the cargo surveyor on a ship earlier this week...he made some conservative-minded comments that sparked a conversation, and he ended up literally spitting while he spoke about fascism and government conspiracies. This guy was a supposed black belt in Judo and had a small arsenal at his home (according to him); I felt worried, and I'm an over-armed conservative myself...

One example of many.

I wonder if these people even know what they are saying, or if they are just jumping on the bandwagon so to speak.

Well I'm glad I dont live in America, I've also wanted to visit and will hopefully get to one day. I might hold off until after the coup.

[txshurricane]

The problem isn't Obama and the left, it's the right are now so far right it's getting ridiculous. Watch any of the networks--the "right" commentators and guests are like a hive mind; they spout the exact same buzzwords. A montage of weekend interviews shows this. So when laymen talk about socialism at the watercooler, they have no fucking idea what they're talking about. They heard it from some Republican on Fox News. They don't even get the urge to look up what socialism really is. Because Obama it is NOT.

Keep up the good work, Right. Keep brainwashing your homeschooled kids. :)
Wait a sec...you're generalizing. Why is it such a sin to be critical? Right-wing pundits are not the strict voice of conservatives, necessarily. How come no one ever brings up Dennis Miller? Fred Thompson? Dave Ramsey? These are all very conservative and very intelligent talking heads.

No, leftists would rather bring up Ann Coulter, or that retard Glenn Beck, or even Rush Limbaugh, as irrelevant as he's become.

It's not a right-wing thing. It's a sensationalist thing, and now you see what conservatives saw during Bush's eight years: complete and ridiculous frothing at the mouth.

I wonder if these people even know what they are saying, or if they are just jumping on the bandwagon so to speak.
I don't know. I've prepared myself for the possibility of riots or evacuation, but even that may be extreme. In any case, I've no desire to meet other U.S. citizens on a battlefront. I'd rather get out.

[ShivaX]

Wait a sec...you're generalizing. Why is it such a sin to be critical? Right-wing pundits are not the strict voice of conservatives, necessarily. How come no one ever brings up Dennis Miller? Fred Thompson? Dave Ramsey? These are all very conservative and very intelligent talking heads.


Because those guys don't have the ability to dictate what the party is thinking or saying at a given moment. If people like Steele would stop sucking the cocks of people like Limbaugh people might have a higher view of the party. Instead they can't even say that Beck and Limbaugh are extremists. They say something remotely negative about them and then recant it within 24 hours and apologize. Last I looked noone elected Rush, much less appointed him to run the party, yet the supposed leader of the party cowtows to him at every turn.

If real conservatives had any balls it would be one thing, but overall they don't. They let people like Beck and Limbaugh run the party by proxy by being to cowardly to denounce their stupidity.

[MagGnome]

Because those guys don't have the ability to dictate what the party is thinking or saying at a given moment. If people like Steele would stop sucking the cocks of people like Limbaugh people might have a higher view of the party. Instead they can't even say that Beck and Limbaugh are extremists. They say something remotely negative about them and then recant it within 24 hours and apologize. Last I looked noone elected Rush, much less appointed him to run the party, yet the supposed leader of the party cowtows to him at every turn.

If real conservatives had any balls it would be one thing, but overall they don't. They let people like Beck and Limbaugh run the party by proxy by being to cowardly to denounce their stupidity.

We have a winner.

[txshurricane]

Because those guys don't have the ability to dictate what the party is thinking or saying at a given moment. If people like Steele would stop sucking the cocks of people like Limbaugh people might have a higher view of the party. Instead they can't even say that Beck and Limbaugh are extremists. They say something remotely negative about them and then recant it within 24 hours and apologize. Last I looked noone elected Rush, much less appointed him to run the party, yet the supposed leader of the party cowtows to him at every turn.

If real conservatives had any balls it would be one thing, but overall they don't. They let people like Beck and Limbaugh run the party by proxy by being to cowardly to denounce their stupidity.
This goes back to the same comment I made in the other thread...

Republican does not = conservative, and Democrat does not = liberal. Although at one point they went hand-in-hand, the last three years of U.S. politics has thrown a fart into the wedding.

I see what you're getting at, but I got the feeling -- despite dropping the R-word once -- that Kelegacy is focusing on conservatives. And considering that most conservative pundits are actually members of the Libertarian party, what he said was a huge generalization...and wrong by anyone's standards.

Generalizing conservatives or Republicans on their own is bad enough...but lumping them together and making a general statement is pretty much as partisan as it gets.

[ShivaX]

So you're arguing that Republicans aren't conservatives?

I mean I could see arguing that Democrats aren't liberals, since the party is actually fairly big tent anymore and has a lot of fairly conservative people in it. But the GOP votes along conservative ideals every time and they almost always vote together. Hell Snowe voting differently was such a strange event it was newsworthy.

The only thing in the last three years that changed was everyone started to fucking hate Bush, which resulted in tons of conservatives bailing on the Republican name. They now claim to be independants because the party is viewed with such disdain. Of course they left the more extreme members in charge for the most part, so its not like they did themselves any favors.

Regardless the GOP has been hijacked by the far right. Right leaning moderates might as well not exist in our politics right now. Its not like I see anyone stepping up to the plate for the conservative view point. All I see is people talking about death panels and saying "No" to everything regardless of what it is.

[Kelegacy]

Well, it's generally safe to say that Republicans are conservatives and liberals are Democrats. Yes, it's a generalization. You usually don't have liberal Republicans and vice versa. It's typically more black and white than gray. That's why the Republican word slipped, especially when speaking about politics since our branches of government are divided almost cleanly into two separate, identifiable parties with specific characteristics on each side (conservatism/liberalism).

I think people like these coup folks are actually anti-American though they themselves think they are patriots. Intentionally spreading unrest, fear and misinformation is terrorism in my opinion.

[txshurricane]

So you're arguing that Republicans aren't conservatives?

Regardless the GOP has been hijacked by the far right. Right leaning moderates might as well not exist in our politics right now. Its not like I see anyone stepping up to the plate for the conservative view point. All I see is people talking about death panels and saying "No" to everything regardless of what it is.
I'm just saying that not all Republicans are conservative, not even in congress. I think that's pretty much made obvious by their voting on the last few spending bills, collectively ignoring illegal immigration problems, and jumping on Mexico's bandwagon over gun smuggling.
Also, the fact that many Republicans considered ultra-conservative VP nominee Sarah Palin to be too far right-leaning, and backed moderate John McCain for president says a ton to me about just how less conservative Republicans are than Libertarians.

[ShivaX]

Honestly I think McCain only got the nomination because independants went out and got him in. Same goes for Obama. The bases had already picked Clinton and Romney to be the candidates, but people were so fed up with the bullshit of the parties they actually went and voted in primaries.

I get what you're saying to an extent, but from what I've seen most Republicans in Congress right now are playing the Libertarian tune (or more accurately are playing the "opposite of whatever the Dems say tune"). Even McCain, a supposed moderate, did it and it cost him the presidency in my opinion. Instead of being John McCain he decided to be some sort of ultra conservative "maverick". If he'd been John McCain 2000 I would've voted for him. Instead he was John McCain 2008, which was pretty much a talking head spewing all the horseshit that the GOP had been saying for years. His one redeeming moment in the whole campaign was with the woman who was afraid of Obama being a Muslim. That was John McCain. Sadly he'd sold the rest of his soul in the previous years to try to get the nomination.

[BlackPete]

Meh... politics as usual.

The market tanking = Obama's fault.

The market recovering (and DOW hitting 10,000) = Bush's recovery (http://washingtonindependent.com/63961/fox-news-talks-up-bush-recovery).

God, I hate partisans.

[Generation ABXY]

Meh... politics as usual.

The market tanking = Obama's fault.

The market recovering (and DOW hitting 10,000) = Bush's recovery (http://washingtonindependent.com/63961/fox-news-talks-up-bush-recovery).

God, I hate partisans.

Well, you could see the exact opposite of that reported, too - it all depends on where you look. There are a number of fair-minded, even-handed conservatives out there - just as there are, I imagine, reasonable liberals - but they don't nearly get the same attention because someone foaming at the mouth makes for much better television.

Also, I would argue that, no, a number of Republicans (especially those in office) are not conservative; if they were, they would have voted against most of their outrageous spending even when Bush was in office. The fact they've flopped now is just one more reason we term limits, in my opinion.

Also, I entirely agree with your comments on John McCain, ShivaX. That man changed his tune a lot this last election, and it was sad to see - he was far from my top pick (though I still took him over Obama).

[Ultima Thulian]

I don't understand why people think shit like this is new. Extremist retards have existed since this country's birth. And many almost garner some audience, to an extent. And with today being the so called information age, well, such lunacy is even easier to broadcast and find an audience for.

The thing I find even funnier, is that people some how panic of dumb shit like this and think by moving elsewhere it'll be okay. It won't. It's all part of the big joke. Most of the world is slowly losing its collective shit. Patience folks, patience. The punchline will likely hit within our lifetime. I give it about...hrm...50-60 years.

[Dorkandproudofit]

It's all part of the big joke. Most of the world is slowly losing its collective shit. Patience folks, patience. The punchline will likely hit within our lifetime. I give it about...hrm...50-60 years.

http://i34.tinypic.com/28mokyv.gif

[Generation ABXY]

And with today being the so called information age, well, such lunacy is even easier to broadcast and find an audience for.

I think that is the crux of it - thanks to the internet, 24-hour news, etc., these things get much broader coverage and spread much quicker than they've ever been able to before.

[Slack3r78]

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

Feel free to Google that quote for the source.

[BlackPete]

I think that is the crux of it - thanks to the internet, 24-hour news, etc., these things get much broader coverage and spread much quicker than they've ever been able to before.

That's the one hope I have: The crazies are like roaches, they skitter around when you turn over the rock they'd been hiding under... hopefully if enough rocks are turned over, they won't have anywhere left to run away to, and eventually wither away in the sun.

[txshurricane]

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

Feel free to Google that quote for the source.
Wait, are you saying that anyone who shares that belief is as insane as the man who said it? (I did Google it, I'm letting others do the same.)

Much of that quote sounds paranoid NOW, but the situation expressed is not entirely impossible, just improbable. I don't agree with the statements, but I know perfectly sane people who do. I'm sure you could drop some names of your own.

Crossing topics again: in another thread, there are people claiming that the world is going to overheat and kill us all. Just saying.

[boratika]

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

Feel free to Google that quote for the source.

Also:

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight ... Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."

[Slack3r78]

Wait, are you saying that anyone who shares that belief is as insane as the man who said it? (I did Google it, I'm letting others do the same.)
No, I'm saying that the rhetoric is similar enough to make me feel remarkably uncomfortable.

Much of that quote sounds paranoid NOW, but the situation expressed is not entirely impossible, just improbable. I don't agree with the statements, but I know perfectly sane people who do. I'm sure you could drop some names of your own.
It's not the idea that government can be oppressive that bothers me here, it's the belief that we are irrevocably on the path to tyranny with violent revolution being the only recourse.

The quote I posted is that of a man who was inspired by the type of rhetoric we're seeing ramped up again today.

Crossing topics again: in another thread, there are people claiming that the world is going to overheat and kill us all. Just saying.

And if their belief was that the only way to avert that was by violently attacking those that disagree with them, I'd call their rhetoric dangerous as well.

EDIT:

I mean, just as an example, I'd be shocked if more than maybe one or two posters on this entire forum hold views on guns rights that are anywhere near as no-holds barred that I do. I don't think of myself as a dangerous lunatic even though the quote talks about gun ownership.

[ShivaX]

I mean, just as an example, I'd be shocked if more than maybe one or two posters on this entire forum hold views on guns rights that are anywhere near as no-holds barred that I do. I don't think of myself as a dangerous lunatic even though the quote talks about gun ownership.

Actually I think you'd be pleasently suprised as far as that goes. Well unless you're saying toddlers should be able to buy guns or that private civilians should have access to artillery and miniguns or something.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't understand why people think shit like this is new. Extremist retards have existed since this country's birth. And many almost garner some audience, to an extent. And with today being the so called information age, well, such lunacy is even easier to broadcast and find an audience for.

The difference here is this "extremist retard" isn't some fringe loony in his basement. Here's his bio from NewsMax, a high-profile conservative site where he has written a column for over 10 years.

John L. Perry, an award-winning newspaper editor and writer, who served on White House staffs of two presidents, contributes a regular column to NewsMax.com.
Newspapers under his direction were consistent winners of awards for journalistic excellence. The Associated Press Managing Editors Association named him one of the 12 best newsroom managers among the AP's member newspapers.

Perry has received numerous awards for column and editorial writing and for public-service and spot-news reporting.

He has worked as an editor or reporter for several daily newspapers, including the Tampa Tribune, the St. Petersburg Times, the Buffalo Evening News and the Clearwater Sun.

With a master's degree from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, he was one of the first American journalists allowed into the Soviet Union after the death of Joseph Stalin.

Perry also has had a distinguished career in public policy. He served President Lyndon B. Johnson as deputy under secretary of commerce and was a White House speech writer and race-relations trouble-shooter for President Johnson.

In the Jimmy Carter administration, he was executive assistant to the under secretary of Housing and Urban Development and was interim director of public information for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Perry served as press aide to Gov. LeRoy Collins of Florida and executive assistant to the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.

A specialist in corporate communications, strategic planning and crisis management, he was public-affairs counselor to several international and national businesses.

Perry was also assistant to the president of the National Association of Broadcasters, a member of the top-management team and director of public relations for the 1982 World’s Fair in Knoxville, Tenn., and an academic fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, Calif.

This is someone with a lifetime of experience in politics and journalism, with many accomplishments under his belt, openly opining on a possible military coup against a fairly elected President.

This isn't the case of some lunatic's obscure blog comment getting widespread attention. The writer used to run newsrooms for the Associated Press and worked in the White House! He is mainstream media, not fringe conspiracy theorist.

[Shadowstorm]

Come chill out in Australia, only time you need to evacuate is summer, straight to the beach or river.

You just don't see stuff like here, you don't really here about crazies like this here and we usually just laugh them off.

Internet sucks in Australia though.

[Slack3r78]

Actually I think you'd be pleasently suprised as far as that goes. Well unless you're saying toddlers should be able to buy guns or that private civilians should have access to artillery and miniguns or something.

18 to buy and instant background check are about the only concessions I'm really willing to make. I'm for the repeal of the 1934 NFA and the Hughes amendment to the FOPA of 1986. For Vermont style unlicensed carry. Would probably support the restoration of firearms rights for former felons after a period like, say, the full length of their original term plus five years, much the same way I support voting rights for former felons that have completed their term.

Like I said, I'm fully aware that my views probably piss off a lot of pro-gun people. :)

[ShivaX]

I wouldn't completely disagree with that viewpoint, though I wouldn't agree with all of it. I like that it isn't easy for private citizens to own M-60s or grenades and wouldn't really want that to change too much. On the other hand I'd like to see some of the grey areas get cleared up regarding a lot of firearms laws and made more reasonable.

[Slack3r78]

I like that it isn't easy for private citizens to own M-60s or grenades and wouldn't really want that to change too much.
The NFA and Hughes Amendment are what regulate the ownership of automatic weapons to civilians, so that says where I stand on that one.

[Ink Asylum]

Now you can play out this crazy wingnut fantasy in an online game! (http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php)

Discovered this via the Crooks and Liars blog, (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/militia-madness-online-game-based-am) where they quote the best parts, like the right-wing fantasy coup:

As far back as the 1950s there were many who would talk of the N.W.O., or New World Order, behind closed doors--and the plan to implement it. Rumors of this clandestine planning were scoffed at by the media and political elite, and the majority of people were in the dark concerning the true nature of the processes and policies unfolding before their eyes. By 2007 the N.W.O was being spoken about freely in the media. By 2009, the President of the United States and world leaders openly discussed how to achieve this New World Order, and how to ensure the permanency of a regime that would represent the successful culmination of the Marxist experiments of the 20th century. Back in 2007, one brave newscaster was the first in what used to be called the 'mainstream media' to ring the alarm bell. That man was Lou Dobbs of CNN. Click to see video. Lou Dobbs was reported missing during the media purges of January and February 2011, when Mark Lloyd and the FCC, on Obama's orders, cracked down on all dissent in broadcasting. Glen Beck, another broadcast media personality who rang the alarm bell before the coup, was found dead of an 'aspirin overdose' in late 2010, after the devastating elections in November.

Other broadcasters and 'new media leaders' Neil Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, among the hundreds of others who dared to speak against what was going on, were rounded up shortly before the newly elected Congresspeople and Senators were to be seated. This event is now referred to as the Great Media Purge of 2011. President Obama and the Draconian FCC, now filled with his appointed Marxists including Mark Lloyd (Click to watch video), were quick to abolish FOX news, talk radio and all other dissent. The elite media, formerly called the mainstream media, were ecstatic as their audience had been declining week after week beginning in 2008. Unable to face a real media that investigated and reported news, they acted in self-interest in hope of getting government bailout money promised to them by officials in the Obama administration. This was the first step in the nationalization of all media in America, which officially began in 2010, a move that Americans would not welcome and helped spur the Second American Revolution. It all seemed to be coming to a head by late 2009. With over a million (by some estimates) people gathering in Washington D.C. for the anti-tax rally on 9/12, spurred on by Americans from all parties, the media's complicit bend toward dictatorship showed itself for the world to see.

Yahoo News, NY Times, and most other media outlets simply ignored the rallies. Rather than cover the news as news outlets used to do before journalism died in 2008, they preferred to tar the attendees as "racists" and "extremists." It now seemed as if all of middle America were being called racists and extremists. Even the Department of Homeland Security put all Patriots on a watch list for daring to want smaller government or less taxes. They dared even to classify our returning vets as security risks to be watched, which helped to add to the military's disgust with the Obama Administration and media. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for most Americans came when Obama appointed avowed communists and ex-felons such as Van Jones to White House positions "advising" Obama. No one to this day knows how such people could pass the formerly required background checks of the F.B.I. The NY Times, oozing bias, formerly the newspaper of record, didn't even mention most of these Czars' names until the bloggers and FOX investigative reporting outed them as the crazed radicals that they were.

Of course, using recent video tape of the Marxists talking of either overthrowing America or of their love of Castro, Chavez and other Marxists, was enough for the NY Times to claim a 'hatchet job' had been performed on the Czars. This was a laughable matter for any American who knew how Obama was filling all posts with real Marxists and revolutionaries who hated the United States and freedom. The fallen Glenn Beck put it all together for us and the question was asked "Could a coup ever take place in America?" Andrew Breitbart led the way in exposing the communists in ACORN and their massive voter fraud schemes. The elite media turned a blind eye as usual. The bloggers came out over and over again exposing the entire collapse of our financial system and how it was executed via the CRA or Community Reinvestment Act. Even Obama's past was well-hidden, with the help of the elite media. In fact, his entire past was shielded from the public. These facts further incensed the public. The Revolution brewed and brewed and nothing had stopped it by early 2010.

The powderkeg had a short fuse, which Obama was more than happy to light. American citizens were not sheep like the citizens of Britain, who allowed their government to take away their right to bear arms, and Americans would not go quietly into the night. Even before Barack Obama was elected, the destruction of America was well-planned by the global Marxists and N.W.O. proponents. American citizens were also well-prepared and the Revolution turned out to be one of the bloodiest any nation would ever see. With literally millions of Americans taking to the streets and even facing down Federal troops in Michigan, New York, California, Texas, and Illinois, Obama knew his days were numbered. Admiral Mullen of the Joint Chiefs finally recalled all Federal troops from their remaining posts in American cities after 4,000 soldiers in Michigan, most of them Oathkeepers, turned on and killed the commander Obama had hand-picked for them. This was the 8th incident across America where American Soldiers or Marines dared to follow the Constitution and not obey the Un-Constitutional orders given to them by Obama's appointed commanders. The Joint Chiefs decided not to be on the wrong side of history and declared that the military would stand aside and guard against any foreign threats during the remaining days of the crisis.

It's every wingnut persecution fantasy rolled up in one. Priceless.

[MagGnome]

Wow, that's incredible! It's kind of disturbing that someone would actually believe any of that hogwash.

If Obama is really a "socialist" or a "Marxist", then why the hell isn't he pushing single-payer healthcare? Oh wait, that's because he isn't a socialist! It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

[Generation ABXY]

If Obama is really a "socialist" or a "Marxist", then why the hell isn't he pushing single-payer healthcare? Oh wait, that's because he isn't a socialist! It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

Well, I can certainly see where they're coming from with that one, Mags. Obama was a proponent of single-payer in the past, and, whether he still is or not, a number of people (like Frank) are willing to admit that UHC can be a sort of backdoor into it.

[jeffbax]

Obama is certainly a statist. The same people making a stink out of Obama protestors being racist or something are the same shitheads that said the Bush protestors were all loons. I can get behind the protesters, and feel it is good for citizenship here. I'd hate people to confuse shitheads like Glenn Beck or something as libertarian though. He couldn't be further from it.

[Xerxes]

I'm wow'd by how much this Glenn Beck character is like everywhere.

[BigJonno]

I love how all these far-right nutjobs sat by while all the post-9/11, civil-rights-abusing bullshit happened, but as soon as someone even hints at doing something that will affect them personally, they get all militant.

It just proves that they don't give a shit about freedom or the ideals that America was founded on (which I have the utmost respect for.) They're exactly the same as everyone else; as long as their toes aren't stepped on, they don't care.

[jeffbax]

I love how all these far-right nutjobs sat by while all the post-9/11, civil-rights-abusing bullshit happened, but as soon as someone even hints at doing something that will affect them personally, they get all militant.

Why is it always that, and not that people have said "enough is enough"?

[BigJonno]

Why is it always that, and not that people have said "enough is enough"?

I believe that, generally speaking, people are selfish little bastards that care about their own security and prosperity above all else. Incredibly cynical, I know, but I've seen very little to contradict that. Genuine sacrifice, even inconvenience, on behalf of others is rare.

Which is more plausible, that the far right have slowly been pushed to the edge after decades of tightening government control, or that they didn't care about what happened to all those people who were probably terrorists anyway, right, and are now up in arms because they've got themselves worked up about the foreign, black Marxist in power who is going to take away their guns and improve access to healthcare?

[RandoM51]

I've had some serious talks with my wife about something to this effect. To me the U.S. is still the greatest country in the world, bar none...but articles like the one in the OT make me want to evacuate my young family.

The real reason to move out would be that America is in for some really hard times. Our competitiveness in world markets hasn't justified the elevated standard of living we've maintained over most of the rest of the world for a very long time. America is going to have to pay the piper and it is going to be very painful.

I'd check out the balance of trade between Canada and the US before deciding on Canada, though. We're going to take a number of other countries along for the ride with us, kicking and screaming.

[jeffbax]

I believe that, generally speaking, people are selfish little bastards that care about their own security and prosperity above all else. Incredibly cynical, I know, but I've seen very little to contradict that. Genuine sacrifice, even inconvenience, on behalf of others is rare.

Which is more plausible, that the far right have slowly been pushed to the edge after decades of tightening government control, or that they didn't care about what happened to all those people who were probably terrorists anyway, right, and are now up in arms because they've got themselves worked up about the foreign, black Marxist in power who is going to take away their guns and improve access to healthcare?

You have to assume that the protests are only made of people on the "fringe" when that is in fact not the case despite the media's portrayal of things.

Honestly, do you not remember how the 100,000 strong protestors for the 2004 RNC were portrayed? As if they were a bunch of lunatics. This is nothing new, and the party in power will stereotype the opposition whenever possible - and the media will go with it because it sells.

I would argue most of the protestors are going because so far, Obama is taking Bush's big government torch and running with it - and people have had enough. I find the political activism somewhat inspiring actually. You also have to understand, that the wheels set in motion during the Bush years don't have an immediately felt effect. I imagine any president in power now would have trouble if he was going to increase the role of government largesse that Obama and Bush have done.

The things happening now are simply not sustainable, and will severely cripple us for years to come if things keep going the way they are. Bush shot us in the foot, but we shouldn't let it bleed till we've got gangrene and have to take off an entire leg.

I'm someone who voted for both Kerry and Obama, and I'm on the side of the protestors. Enough is enough, and as someone who agreed with the Bush protests, I don't understand how people are so quick to make this out to be about the racists. Are there racists? Sure, but they are also probably 1 in 10,000 at these things.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I believe that, generally speaking, people are selfish little bastards that care about their own security and prosperity above all else. Incredibly cynical, I know, but I've seen very little to contradict that. Genuine sacrifice, even inconvenience, on behalf of others is rare.

Not necessarily.

Altruism (or as social psychologists call it, Pro-social Behavior) does happen, and it happens all the time. Most of the time, though, it happens under one or more of these conditions:

1.) If you are, or have ever been, in a similar situation to the one the victim is in;

2.) If both the victim and the hero/heroine are in the same income bracket, most often the lowest one;

3.) If you share a set of values, beliefs, etc.

4.) If the situation is extremely dangerous, i.e. a fire, natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

All of these things make it more likely that people will help. This happens much more often than you'd think, yet the media in general almost never report it, mainly because bad things sell more than good things.

[ShivaX]

Are there racists? Sure, but they are also probably 1 in 10,000 at these things.

I'm all for pulling number out of ones ass to make a point, but the general populace has a whole shitload more racists than 1 in 10,000. Hell its probably closer to 10% of the white population or more (or even much more). Given the nature of the event and who they're protesting its going to attract those people so you'd expect a higher percentage of racists in the crowd.

1 in 10,000 in a group of 100,000 means theres only 10 racists. I bet you can easily find more than that many pictures of racist signs at these things and I'm assuming every racist isn't bringing a sign that screams "Look at me I hate black people!"

Also overall these are people who solidly supported Bush when he was doing things and called anyone who said otherwise a traitor. While some of them might be pissed at Obama for not changing course, I'm betting the vast majority of them didn't vote for the guy and wouldn't vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name.

Its just like the anti-war protests. You aren't going to find a large percentage of Republican voters at one and the percentage of anarchists and the like is going to be well above the norm. Does that mean their entire message is crap? Not at all, but it does paint them in a negative light and their message often gets lost when theres scores of idiots carrying signs equating the president to Hitler (which both sides had/have tons of).

Mostly its about people losing and being bitter about it. Bush was Hitler cause I voted for Gore/Kerry and hes not doing what I want him to. Obama is Hitler cause I voted for McCain (or I didn't vote because McCain was a liberal) and hes not doing what I want. Well no shit, thats how democratic republics work. When you lose your plans don't get enacted. You have the right to take to the streets and bitch about it, but everyone else has the right to call you sore losers or whatever they want as well.

You sure as fuck don't get to declare that we need a military coup because you lost a fucking election and not get called on it.

[Ink Asylum]

Why is it always that, and not that people have said "enough is enough"?

Because it's a little too convenient that the tipping point happened on January 20th.

The people who are saying "enough is enough" right now are the same ones that were saying "enough is enough" when Clinton was President. They're fine when it's their team doing something but it's an outrage when a Democratic President tries to do anything.

[jeffbax]

Because it's a little too convenient that the tipping point happened on January 20th.

The people who are saying "enough is enough" right now are the same ones that were saying "enough is enough" when Clinton was President. They're fine when it's their team doing something but it's an outrage when a Democratic President tries to do anything.

I'm pretty sure the tipping point wasn't January 20th. It's also juvenile to assume that there aren't people at these protests who didn't oppose Bush.

[Narradisall]

I'd love is Obama went batshit crazy and started ruling with an iron fist, crushing all the right wing in his path.

Mainly cause those crazy powers would have been granted to the president by them.

[Xerxes]

I'd love is Obama went batshit crazy and started ruling with an iron fist, crushing all the right wing in his path.

Mainly cause those crazy powers would have been granted to the president by them.

In Soviet America?

[Dorkandproudofit]

Time to get the debate ball rolling again.

My personal take one this? It's the last, desperate cry of a dying party, trying to go as loudly as possible into that good night. Of course, even a dead snake can still bite...

[CappinCanuck]

I blame the media. I don't know when it happened, but it did and I am pretty sure it happened sometime during Bush's presidency (reference for timeline not causation). They do not analyze anymore or even report. Everything I watch is just regurgitated nonsense someone said or something that happened without commentary. There's no responsible analysis or reporting of consequence/implication. When there is, it's some completely unqualified "analyst," whose statements are not checked in the least. This leads most people to believe the shit that is said as fact or news. I wish some "journalists" would bother to call bullshit when they see it rather than reporting it as fact.

Here's an example off the top of my head because this came up in a discussion with a visiting Ameri-friend. She was convinced a public healthcare would cost vast amounts more than the current system. I can't blame her for thinking that, I saw the same messages on CNN about 10x because they were just regurgitating what some senator said. Hell, it was basically a shot of him doing a press conference with a one-liner saying, "Public healthcare costs more." Then they move on. I saw 0 analysis of the actual figures. Almost every other Western country has some form of social healthcare, you can't tell me that figures are not available? Why do they not actually check anything? Hell, when I finally saw an analysis of the cost breakdowns comparing US, Canada, Britain, Fr and Germany, it was on CBC of all places -- not even an American broadcast. (I am not saying Canadian media is any better btw) Either way, according to that study, it actually costs significantly less.

You can't expect anyone to know any better is my bottom line, when their source of info and news is not verified.

[txshurricane]

I believe that, generally speaking, people are selfish little bastards that care about their own security and prosperity above all else. Incredibly cynical, I know, but I've seen very little to contradict that. Genuine sacrifice, even inconvenience, on behalf of others is rare.

So are you truly generally speaking, or are you exempting liberals and moderates?

I'm all for pulling number out of ones ass to make a point, but the general populace has a whole shitload more racists than 1 in 10,000. Hell its probably closer to 10% of the white population or more (or even much more). Given the nature of the event and who they're protesting its going to attract those people so you'd expect a higher percentage of racists in the crowd.

1 in 10,000 in a group of 100,000 means theres only 10 racists. I bet you can easily find more than that many pictures of racist signs at these things and I'm assuming every racist isn't bringing a sign that screams "Look at me I hate black people!"
I agree that the numbers are too thin, but a huge part of that is that racism is not limited to one race. I know - KNOW - more black folks, Filipinos, and Mexicans that are racist than white people.

[BigJonno]

I'm not exempting anyone, even myself. I like to consider myself a "good" person, but I can't remember the last time I genuinely inconvenienced myself for another person that wasn't a friend or family member. Put me on the spot, well, I've been physically attacked while defending people I didn't even know, but that's different.

As for the whole conservative/liberal/moderate thing, I can only really comment as an outsider looking in. UK politics just isn't like that, the main parties are so centralised that you can hardly tell the difference.