On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Roger Howard wrote:

> On Thu, November 6, 2008 10:06 am, Charles Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Roger Howard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>>> said better than I could ever hope to.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000192.html>
>>>
>>> Which part, or all of this crap?
>>>
>>
>> POV.
>
> Still, looking for which part of this thread you agree with, and which
> part you would classify as derangement.
>
> Derangement to me:
>
> 1. The continued assertion that a large part of Obama's appeal was his
> race, and thus was an inherently racist campaign.

The right wing folks I associate with didn't give a rats butt about  
his race.   It was things like capital gains taxes and the idea that  
you can tax your way to a recovery.

> Most who voted for him
> were not black, and my general impression is that people voted for  
> Barack
> because he was the inspirational, articulate, and clearly  
> intellectually
> superior candidate, regardless of his color. In fact, I would say he  
> had a
> much higher bar to cross in terms of his qualities than a white  
> candidate,
> not the other way around.

I completely agree.   He kicked McCain's ass in so many different  
ways.   His ground organization is sure to be copied as "the way to do  
it" by everyone in the future.


>
>
> 2. The notion that he's a socialist - the right seems to have just  
> learned
> the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and seems completely oblivious  
> to
> the real meaning of that phrase - taking land, nationalizing foreign
> businesses, and confiscating private wealth. It does NOT apply to  
> minor
> adjustments in tax policy - otherwise every president of the past  
> century
> is a "redistributionist". You may not like the fine points of his tax
> policy, but it is just that - fine, subtle differences, compared  
> with any
> true re-distribution.

I think the "redistribution" or "spread the wealth around" was just  
campaign rhetoric trying to take advantage of a perceived gaff and  
perhaps a true insight to his
"real" thinking.

I put all of that aside since, well, he won.  Period.

I will oppose his 'minor' tweaking of the tax code.  I did when he was  
running and him winning doesn't magically make me change my mind.

I think the changes will make the economy much worse not better, but  
that isn't a change in my position.


>
>
> 3. The Bush Derangement Syndrome - yes, some of us had concerns from  
> the
> start, much like with Palin, that we was a lightweight, anti- 
> intellectual,
> fundamentalist. That said, I think *most* of the anti-Bush sentiment  
> arose
> specifically because of his policies and actions in office - we didn't
> really know him well before he was elected. Once in office he was  
> kinda
> quiet until 9/11, after which point a lot of us felt like the country
> veered far off course and into untested waters - preemptive warfare,
> torture, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, tax cuts during a huge war, the  
> massive
> enlargement of homeland security.
>
> So what in that thread do you agree with, or maybe more importantly  
> did
> you disagree with?


What I agreed with was his specific congratulations of Obama, his  
support of the fact that Obama is his (and mine too) President and  
that if ($Diety forbid) another national emergency of a 9/11 scale  
happens on Obama's watch, then we will support OUR President, period.

We will continue to disagree about policy, but it is proper to take a  
moment and reflect that the country has taken an important step.

You comment above about "Most who voted for him" is exactly right.    
His appeal was NOT his race, it was his Presidential bearing and the  
rest of what you said.

The number of whites that voted for him and the geographic dispersion  
in the number of states he won, refutes the very idea that it was a  
race based on Race.

I read the article as a congratulations to Obama and a celebration of  
that fact, while accepting that we will still oppose his policies.

No more, no less.

=c=




_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/

Reply via email to