It’s not just because he’s black. I wish I could tell you that I loved this guy, that he was a great president, that I had faith in him. But I have none. Zero.
Recent Comments
- dmantis: Rich, “That when great scientists carry out their research they discover how... on Case For a Creator?
- UrsaMinor: On the bright side, no actual facts were harmed in the making of this video, thanks to the... on Still Earth
- Ben: I can actually feel myself getting dumber… on Still Earth
- Azel: Even admitting God is the source of morality, why should it be... on John Piper and Divine Command
- Custador: If I reply from the commenting dashboard it puts my comment first in the... on John Piper and Divine Command
- TrickQuestion: i just imagine the guy sitting there in a diaper, smacking a physics book with a... on Still Earth
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Classic mistake when someone tries to hide their real reasons so they don’t sound too stupid/racist/bigot/etc. I had a coworker doing the same thing when we were discussing homosexuality.
“I’m not racist, but…”
And yet there is no but. I find it so damn hard to drag anything approaching a reason to dislike Obama out of many of his detractors that I come across. They can’t cite his policy positions, only that they get a funny feeling from him, or just blindly don’t trust him. I’m all for refusing to blindly trust a politician, but if you are going to get a sign and protest him, you probably should have found out something about him you don’t like first. And the only info they have available to them is… he’s black.
I’ve encountered the same thing. The general response is that “he has no experience’. Yet, those same people jumped all over the Palin bandwagon, claiming she has more experience and would be better in office.
I’m not a racist, but . . .
I’m actually not so high on Obama right now, because frankly he doesn’t seem to have done what I had hoped he would. I had hoped he would push legislation much more strongly than former presidents, sign more executive orders, and generally been more focused and forceful. There is no reason politicians can’t get shit done except that they don’t want to or don’t know how. I mean sure, eventually a healthcare bill got passed, but it isn’t even a public option, and it’s essentially a giant compromise for Republicans who ended up uniformly voting against it anyways. And honestly, he hasn’t done much else. He still hasn’t closed Guantanamo, we still haven’t stopped torturing Iraqi POWs, we still have a sexist, homophobic military, and to be honest, internationally, we are still the same arrogant hegemonic force we have always been (that said, we have signed a disarmament treaty with Russia, so I guess that is something). Furthermore, we still are not complying with the Kyoto Protocol and haven’t even signed the Law of the Sea Treaty, and we have no real climate bill whatsoever.
When it comes down to it, Obama hasn’t done much yet. Sure, I can’t expect him to do all or even half of those things above, but he could have done at least one. People calling him a socialist are deluding themselves–he has shown himself to be truly centrist, if anything, a moderate Democrat.
And no, this is not all Obama’s fault. It is also Congress’s fault, if not more so. But the reason Obama was so popular was that people thought he would be able to lead the nation and Congress and spur real change, and he hasn’t done that. That said, I’m still pretty excited that he’s not white and he’s president.
So I think I can approach a reason to dislike Obama, but I can cite at least some policies and I don’t just have a bad feeling for him or blindly not trust him. But I also think I have the exact opposite position of the people to whom you were referring.
Yea…what you said. I was hoping for more. Offshore drilling, lameness in the FDA’s performance in food safety…we were all stirred up to expect more dramatic changes. I was impressed a 1/2 black guy was elected. Now I don’t know how it’ll play out. If he does poorly, it’ll be a long time before we get anything but a white male for pres. On the other hand, perhaps the simple fact that he was elected, regardless of his final outcome, will have readjusted people’s boundaries on who they can elect.
That’s the funny thing about poll numbers. I have Libertarian (not a birther or bagger, though) who points to Pres. Obama’s sinking poll numbers as an indicator that people don’t like what he’s doing. True, but he thinks it’s because people are frustrated that he’s too ‘socialist’, but many people are frustrated he’s not socialist enough!
For my part, I’m getting exactly what I expected. He can only do so much given the way politics works. Then there’s the aspect that first-term candidates can promise all they want, but they don’t have all of the inside info. When they do, they may find that their promises are difficult to fully enact or downright un-advisable.
The only place I’m mad is that with a majority in the house and senate, I still have to worry about getting healthcare if I get laid off.
I think you’re right in a lot of cases, John. But I know Christians (teabaggers aren’t necessarily Christians, I know) who are not racist (my parents, for instance, who would have beaten me within an inch of my life if I’d shown any racist tendencies) who are very much opposed to Obama and his policies. I can easily see the “I’m not racist” opening as a reaction against the fact that they’re so often accused of being racist, rather than from any latent racism within them.
I’ve never, ever heard the phrase “I’m not X, but” being followed by something X.
Me either. But I’m sure it can happen, it just requires coming across people who are anti-Obama who have managed to educate themselves. If mikespeir’s parents dislike Obama’s policies (and actually know what they are) then that’s at least a start.
Anybody who isn’t racist will not feel the need to say so before criticising a black person, imho. If you have a genuine criticism of a person, then their demographic group is irrelevant and shouldn’t be brought up.
Exactly.
What if we had a homosexual President who advocated principles with which you disagreed? What if the media was constantly tarring all who stood against those principles as homophobic? What if the two became so closely tied together in the minds of many that they couldn’t even imagine that those opposing the principles could be anything other than homophobic? Don’t you suppose that you would be eager to set the matter straight whenever you had a chance at a public pronouncement?
“I’m not homophobic, but I oppose President Jones and his policies.”
I wouldn’t dignify the issue of his sexuality by addressing it. I’d just say what policies I disagreed with and why. If people call me homophobic for that, it’s their own ignorant fault for not listening to what I actually said.
I believe you. You wouldn’t react that way. Others might, and believe that they need to defend themselves against the charge. Their insistence that they’re not homophobic wouldn’t imply that they’re actually homophobic.
I’d say it would imply it, due to the experience most of us have had, but that wouldn’t make it true.
Okay. Sometimes I know when I’m beat. :)
I think that if the majority of people who expressed dislike and even hatred of your “hypothetical” president don’t actually even know what his policies are (particularly those which he adopted from politicians which his critics actually support), then it really wouldn’t matter how often they claimed not to be homophobic – that would be their one and only reason for disliking him, so they’d mostly be liars as well as bigots. Hypothetically, of course…
Well, yeah, if you can show that they really are ignorant of his policies. You might have a point then.
And the Tea Partiers, who are small in number in spite of what the media desperately wants us to believe, are clearly ignorant of both domestic and foreign policy, as well as terms such as “socialism” and “fascism.”
Just got back from Avenue Q, & feel the need to point out that “Everyone’s a little bit racist”.
That said, the speaker in this case is likely more than just a little bit racist, and dumb as a bag of sand to boot.
“It’s not just because he’s black.” It’s not JUST because he’s black– in other words, the fact that his is black is an important factor to this schmuck. It may not be the only factor, but apparently it is one particular factor, after all.
It’s not JUST because these people are stupid idiots, many who can hardly spell or even understand one iota of history– and its not JUST that many of them are religious idiots who don’t even understand the scientific method– and its not JUST that many of these people are hypocrites getting their own “handouts” from the federal government at the same time that they claim to be so vehemently opposed to them– that these people disgust me. No, it is also, and especially, because the majority of these people are a bunch of goddamned racists.
Its “morans” like these that make me very ashamed to be a US American.
Exactly…not JUST because he’s black, but mostly because he’s black. Sheesh. It’s a good thing I’m surrounded by so many compassionate, progressive young people in my work, which allows me to have great hope for the future–otherwise this sort of thing would be the end of my idealism.
I stand in complete agreement with the Tea Party movement’s goals of a limited and small government that better adheres to the Constitution. I think it’s pretty much self-evident that the government as it currently stands sees very little limitations on it’s power. It’s not a Republican / Democrat thing; it’s a growing, power-hungry, over-spending government thing that goes far beyond mere party affiliation.
Oh, and I’m also an atheist.
One position has nothing to do with the other.
I think many Tea Partiers fail to distinguish between bad/corrupt government and government=bad. The blanket “government is bad” mentality is disturbing and disingenuous. Worth reading: http://home.comcast.net/~theyellowdog/joerepublican.htm
Anyone demanding federal “fiscal responsibility” who isn’t first and foremost demanding significant cuts to the military budget (by FAR the single biggest example of waste) can’t be taken seriously.
Nor can I take seriously anyone who is dumb enough to equate socialism with fascism, or admire Sarah Palin, or is too ignorant to see the (unintentional) humor in a sign that reads, “Don’t steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine.”
There are plenty of reasons to be pissed off about the corporatocracy/plutocracy that is the imperialistic US empire (read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine for starters), but the Tea Partiers (as a whole) are bleepin’ clueless. And, yes, racism is certainly a driving force for many of the attendees, of which there really aren’t very many (though the corporate media would like us to believe otherwise).
Also worth reading: http://www.neuski.com/post/474797883
Holy shit yes. I remember getting into a discussion with my uncle a while ago (actually a very reasonable guy), who said something like, “The government has two roles: Defense and international commerce. That’s it.” I eventually convinced him that there were a good eight or nine other important roles, but there are dozens more that I could have listed that he probably would have conceded were important. People just don’t realize how much we rely on the government.
Uh, that was supposed to be a reply to Garrett. I’m not sure why it didn’t nest.
It’s not the size that’s the problem. That’s a bill of goods that’s been sold to the public by “conservatives” (who are everything but). The problem is one of efficiency and being true to purpose. But as long as we are chasing a red herring (straw man, etc.) we will never even see it.
Oops. Same problem. That was supposed to be a response to Michael.
You can be totally for small, limited government (I can actually understand this position), but not support the Tea Party movement at all, for pretty obvious reasons.
That said, I don’t think your characterization of the government is remotely “self-evident.”
Really? The Executive Branch believes that it can kidnap anyone, anywhere in the world, and hold them indefinitely without trial; that they can legally assassinate US citizen who haven’t even been accused of a crime, without any oversight; that they can spy on citizens without warrant or probable cause….
I think it’s pretty self evident that “the government as it currently stands sees very little limitations on it’s power”.
I do agree that the government has gotten to large and needs to be reduced in size and involvement in peoples lives. The main problem I have with the Tea Party is that the leadership isn’t really about this as I see it. They are about the power and money from these actions. If they were really about the US Constitution they would be putting the money they get to work though the courts and truthfulness. Most of the leaders use half truths and lies to keep their followers upset.
The teabaggers don’t give a flying fig about “small” or “limited” government. They didn’t say a mumbling word when George W. Bush expanded government during his term. Their ire is racial, their ire is against everyone they perceive as not being “like them.”
Agreed. These people were largely in favour of McCain and Palin who would have continued to expand on Bush’s policies that got the government to where it is today. McCain voted with the Bush administration 95% of the time. Small government has nothing to do with it. They’re just upset their white privilege has been challenged.
yes, I have trouble with how blind they are to the reality of small govt. To generalize, I get the impression these are the same people who are in favor of more drilling, etc. In other words, they certainly DO expect the govt to put work into finding energy resources, find workers & machines, harvest & process that resource, & distribute it tidily to the people. Any govt large enough to school the nation’s kids, to provide limited health care to old people, to find energy, to enforce laws, to gather & redistribute taxes, is bound to be vast. You don’t hear them saying, “I don’t want your gas! I’ll cut wood on my homestead!” or, “My neighbors & I will deliver our own damned mail. Keep your govt paws off it!”
I’m reluctant to admit that Teabagging is just racism, but I don’t have many options.
They often say the problem with Obama is his policies. But ask them what policies they object to and you’ll often get a stream on nonsense and absurd fiction designed to make hating him easier. So the question is raised: why do they believe all that?
They often say their main concern is taxation and government power. But ask them basic questions about those and you’ll often find they don’t know the first thing. So, they’re motivated enough to spend their days at rallies (sometimes across the country) but they’re not motivated enough to learn the basics of the very issues they rally around? Is such a huge, yet common, oversight a legitimate one or does their motivation actually come from something else?
And it just so happens most of them become political now, the instant a black man is elected. Taxes have been higher; politicians have been more power-hungry and deceitful; the government has violated our freedoms to a greater degree in the past, in even recent history. But it’s just now these things are an issue, and a passionate one. Why? It would be a supreme act of generosity to call it a mere coincidence without studying it.
I’m just surprised more conservatives haven’t publicly disowned the movement. Conservatives fought against the John Birch Society, so why not its retarded cousin? Where the hell are their intellectuals? Surely they exist!
Spot on, chappies!
I have a couple friends who are kinda swept up in this Tea Party movement. Actually I rather detest the name, as it sullies the good name of tea (which I love), and tries to make a historical connection that is seriously ill-founded and reveals a distorted conception of historical fact. But I digress.
Much of what these friends spout sounds rather like a lot of of the right-wing windbaggery blithered from the mouths of overpaid, histrionic pundits on the Faux Noise channel (some of it sounding disturbingly like an updated version of McCarthyism), to pass through these friends’ mouths without first crossing their brains for a little processing, reflection and examination. It’s frustrating beyond measure to get past their emotional outpourings to get to the points upon which I might, rationally, discuss matters with them. It’s rare that I can. But, a few of the points such as the ones merryatheist brought up, that they are upset about are something I feel I can relate to, but the Tea Party idea of what should be done about it is shocking to my sensibilities and in no way do I adhere to my friends’ political position. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy. One thing I have noticed in this country, and it goes far beyond Tea Party lines, is the shocking lack of education people have here about how government functions, the philosophies it’s founded on, and why such things as the court system, for starters, works the way it does. Why Congress taking a long time to be even able pass a law (under ordinary circumstances – don’t get me started on that damn’d mendaciously-named and horrifically draconian “Patriot Act” folderol) is not a bad thing, as some people seem to suggest in this instant oatmeal world we live in, and the role that stare decisis plays in the justice system, why it operates the way it does and both the pros and cons of how it does so. I think the real problem we have now is how horribly the education system has let down an appalling number of students, how the anti-intellectualism that has been an undercurrent in the general population in this country since the start (and noted by Alexis deTocqueville in his book “Democracy in America”), and the effect that the “virtue” of ignorance is having in the public and political sphere. So many people want pat, simple answers, and are more than happy to have others supply them so they don’t have to worry themselves about it, or read and decide for themselves. Yet, freedom itself relies on independent thought, not upon the conformity of opinion imposed by those who seek to expand their own prosperity to the detriment of the general population, which is what we’re seeing with a number of the the news corporations at the moment. Rupert Murdoch, anyone? The saddest thing of all is the fact that these very weaknesses of ignorance, pride in such, and desire to be led like sheep are very easy to exploit by those with darker motives of power and greed who publicly trumpet the cause of freedom (because, who could be against that?), while privately seeking to limit or even destroy it, distracting people with emotion and other such blinding tactics so they don’t have time to consider the consequences. If the dreams of the Founding Fathers end in tyranny, it seems to me that it will be approximately along those lines, and mayhaps with the added dose of the theocratic maunderings so often heard on the winds these days. I think author Sinclair Lewis, who wrote “It Can’t Happen Here,” hit the nail on the head when he said, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Given the most publicly stated sentiments of Tea Party advocates, of which the ideals of small government and close adherence to the Constitution (while confessing an appalling ignorance of the same) seem to garner little of their time, they strike me as cause for concern when cast in light of Lewis’ warning. It’s not that the idea that government should be more like the Constitution that bothers me. Not at all. It’s who and what they support as far as politician and actions toward this end that seems to confess a set of underlying philosophies alien to what the Founding Fathers intended and wrote so passionately about. Yes, I’m all for reform of how government does it’s thing under the Constitution. But, not Tea Party reform, as I don’t consider it to be in line with my own interests or what I understand and consider as the interests of the country as a whole. That’s how I roll.
Now, I’m going to go have a cup of the tea that I paid my taxes on, fair and square, levied by a government in which I have my fair say and representation, the right to vote, and the right to say what I think of them, however withering such opinions might be.
The thing I hate about Obama is how much his policies resemble Bush’s. I don’t understand why Tea Partiers and Republicans aren’t crazy about him.
Likewise, they should be thrilled with the health insurance bill. The Dems out-Republicaned the Republicans with a bill that benefits the insurance industry more than anyone else. A bill that’s identical to Republican proposals of the past. No surprise really, as today’s Democrats are to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
The Overton Window works wonders, doesn’t it?
Thanks. I’d never heard of the Overton Window. That’s exactly what happened.
Yep. Anyone who hasn’t read about the Overton Window should read this: http://www.correntewire.com/the_overton_window_illustrated
The corporate media helps move the window to the right by embellishing the Tea Party “movement,” while practically ignoring the fact that massive numbers of people attend anti-war rallies and immigrant rights marches.
Also of related interest: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
The same reason that democrats weren’t enthralled by John McCain. Even when they agree with someone, the partisan alignments we take in this country trump everything else. It is a sad reality of our current electoral system, something I would have thought that democrats especially would have wanted to do after the 2000 debacle.
Author Stephen Hill wrote two books, “Fixing Elections” was the first and I can’t recall the name of the other but after the 2000 coronation of W he began researching how the way we run elections dictates the kind of government we get. “Winner takes all” elections like we have here guarantee that over time there will be two parties and they will become increasingly polarized.
We act in this country like our elections are football games where the goal is winning at any cost, not running the government efficiently and effectively. Both parties waste grotesque amounts of money to guarantee that their sponsors keep filling their campaign coffers.
Neither party really represents their base. The comments about Obama mirroring W can also be made about certain of W’s efforts like the hideously written medicare drug benefit bill that guaranteed we would do nothing to keep down the costs of medication. The same appears to be true of our new healthcare reform plan that seems designed mainly to please the insurance companies and pharmceutical industry rather than really get at the problem of those of us who cannot get insurance at any price.
Often I will see an idealistic person head off to Washington. Either they are changed and corrupted by the Washington insiders or driven off after a single term. Few survive there with their ethics and morals intact and the longer they stay, the less likely they will keep them.
The US electorate exhibits weaker party affiliation than almost any other democratic electorate on Earth. Other than that, I agree with your point.
Overall, I would agree that we have weaker party affiliations but that the “base” of each party is not only very strong in their affiliation but increasingly so. This in turn pushes more people to the center. Both Bill Clinton and W tried to paint themselves as centrists during the general elections after running for support from their base. This has proven to be an effective strategy. Obama did the same while McCain tried the opposite tactic – running towards the center during the primary then running towards the right in the general election.
“It’s not just because he’s black” is almost as good as the line I get from countless Mormons in various states — “I don’t have a problem with gay people, I just think they’re moral degenerates.”
Labelling people racist just because they disagree with a black politician seems like race baiting rather than looking at what they are saying. I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the whole tea party movement but then again I haven’t paid a lot of attention to a lot of politics. Both sides seem really shrill and irritating.
If you haven’t paid a lot of attention to the whole tea party movement, then I suggest you do a bit of research (and look at some of the signs these folks bear at their rallies)before claiming that criticisms of the racism of this movement are “race baiting.”
no doubt there are some racists in the group, but I keep hearing the entire movement written off as being entirely centered on the race of our president. Having grown up here in the south I have seen more than my share of racism, sadly much from members of my own family. But I have also seen race used time and again here to silence people to the point that charging someone with racism has become virtually meaningless.
I think that little is served by focusing on that feature. The focus overall of the tea parties seems to be excessive spending and excessive taxation. I’m not sure that is our biggest problem either but its a long way from “the president is black”. I voted for Obama, though I would have preferred Clinton, because both promised to address healthcare. This has become the new focus of all evil for the republicans and the tea parties – I’m not sure those can really be separated.
For the republicans the goal is simple – damage the democrats by damaging their political centerpiece. For democrats it seems that the goal is damaging the republicans by damaging their most vocal public effort – the tea parties. All other agendas are secondary.
Our “two parties” treat this like a football game and we the people play right along. At points in the “sausage making” of healthcare reform it seemed like for the democrats that any bill they can pass is the goal regardless of contents and likewise the republicans were going to oppose any bill regardless of contents. The goal wasn’t improving healthcare but which team could score the most points and win in the next election. I’m sick of both of them.
The public option – what would have forced prices down – bit the dust because of money spent freely by lobbyists. We have to wait several years for benefits to come and in the mean time the republicans see the ultimate scoring move would be to repeal it all before it takes effect at all.
I think the race-motivation assumption comes in for most people upon considering whether such a reaction would be expected to have formed had the sitting president been a honkey. If there weren’t already these strong, absurd memes circulating about Obama being a Muslim/Socialist/Kenyan, all of which are at least partially predicated on White fears of usurpation and culture-panic, it is doubtful the Tea Party, as such, would have ever existed.
I think the race-motivation assumption comes in for most people upon considering whether such a reaction would be expected to have formed had the sitting president been a honkey. If there weren’t already these strong, absurd memes circulating about Obama being a Muslim/Socializt/Kenyan, all of which are at least partially predicated on White fears of usurpation and culture-panic, it is doubtful the Tea Party, as such, would have ever existed.
(Damn word filter!)
That’s hard to say. The right pummelled Clinton every way they could and he was as white as any republican. Does it add one more thing to the mix? Sure, for a number of them but I think we would be hearing the same things about gender bias if Hillary had won and pushed the healthcare agenda through. She certainly has been painted as a socialist by the republicans back to Bill’s days in the white house when she was the one carrying the torch for healthcare reform. And we would be hearing less if the healthcare reform bill had failed. If cap and trade is resurrected and passes it will receive the same treatment. I hate that really serious issues have just become political footballs rather than receiving the careful and open deliberation they really deserve.