Right-Wing Backlash to Obama

PopeUrbanII

Can it be discussed here, or is this community too sensitive for it? Just asking. I'm new, and don't want to offend anyone. Thanks.

Overheal

Just say what you want to say.

rovert

Frontlash more like it they were out to get him before he was in office.

PopeUrbanII

Overheal wrote: »

Just say what you want to say.

I've already received an infraction for calling it as I see it, reference Obama.

sceptre

You've received an infraction for posting an giant-lettered dance-card-style list (in another thread) rather than actually discussing anything. As the notice you received said, read the charter and bear in mind that this is a discussion board, not Letterman rimshot list night. The charter is crystal clear on quite a number of things.

There's no actual discussion in this thread, four posts in. If you feel like starting one, now would be an excellent time if you'd like the thread to have a purpose. Charter read first please.

/mod

PopeUrbanII

Thank you all for your responses. Now I know how to proceed here. That's why I started this thread. Thanks again. I really don't want to insult or offend anyone. At the same time, I want to be faithful to my beliefs. Thank you.

Overheal

Your beliefs....

So you don't have any facts that prove that Obama is a white-racist, but you Believe it.

Manic Moran

I can't say I've particularly found the right-wing backlash to Obama/Biden as being any more intense than the left-wing backlash to Bush/Cheney. Seems to be business as usual for US politics.

NTM

rovert

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't say I've particularly found the right-wing backlash to Obama/Biden as being any more intense than the left-wing backlash to Bush/Cheney. Seems to be business as usual for US politics.

NTM

Agreed but these lads have guns and bibles.

Overheal

rovert wrote: »

Agreed but these lads have guns and bibles.

Yeah the other crowd just had weed and copies of F-9/11

rovert

Oh yeah and Fox News

PopeUrbanII

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't say I've particularly found the right-wing backlash to Obama/Biden as being any more intense than the left-wing backlash to Bush/Cheney. Seems to be business as usual for US politics.

NTM

Good point. I tend to agree.:)

PopeUrbanII

rovert wrote: »

Agreed but these lads have guns and bibles.

Many in Obama's crew have The Communist Manifesto - many times more dangerous than guns and the Bible.

PopeUrbanII

rovert wrote: »

Oh yeah and Fox News

I watch a lot of Fox News. Don't care much for O'Reilly, but the rest of the main hosts are agreeable.

sceptre

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

Many in Obama's crew have The Communist Manifesto - many times more dangerous than guns and the Bible.

I have a copy of the communist manifesto (and Das Kapital), I'd imagine a chunk of people with an interest in politics do. I keep them on the shelf next to the Wealth of Nations, The Prince, the PJ O'Rourke library, the Martyn Turner cartoon compendiums and Ken Kesey's "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" (it sort of fits, after all).

So apart from you reckoning these dangerous readers have a naughty book, is there something tangible that you find relevant to the backlash in the thread you started and titled? Or is this thread one of those vaguely chat about anything worrying threads that we try to avoid?

PopeUrbanII

sceptre wrote: »

I have a copy of the communist manifesto (and Das Kapital), I'd imagine a chunk of people with an interest in politics do. I keep them on the shelf next to the Wealth of Nations, The Prince, the PJ O'Rourke library, the Martyn Turner cartoon compendiums and Ken Kesey's "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" (it sort of fits, after all).

So apart from you reckoning these dangerous readers have a naughty book, is there something tangible that you find relevant to the backlash in the thread you started and titled? Or is this thread one of those vaguely chat about anything worrying threads that we try to avoid?

I seriously wanted to check the 'vibe' of this place before I started criticizing the Left, as I usually do. Ideological partisanship is so severe today, the simple expression of opposing views can get you banned or sanctioned within seconds. I've learned that's especially true when posting in European sites.

rovert

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

I watch a lot of Fox News. Don't care much for O'Reilly, but the rest of the main hosts are agreeable.

Yep Beck makes a lot sense

PopeUrbanII

rovert wrote: »

Yep Beck makes a lot sense

He does, BUT........I suspect he's a racist and anti-Catholic, as a hard-headed Mormon. I grew up with those folks, and know them well. I've picked up on a few indicators that tell me Beck is no exception to how I experienced them, growing up.

sceptre

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

I seriously wanted to check the 'vibe' of this place before I started criticizing the Left, as I usually do. Ideological partisanship is so severe today, the simple expression of opposing views can get you banned or sanctioned within seconds. I've learned that's especially true when posting in European sites.

Indeed but we don't run individual litmus tests here for convenience. What can get you banned and sanctioned here is pretty much all outlined in the forum charter. As it's contained within a sticky thread at the top of the forum , with other threads for member information (there are only four sticky threads, of which the charter is the most important), and clearly marked, that's where to find out what to avoid. Assertions without reasonable backup tend to be bad, as a prescient example - that's contained within the charter. Site rules/guidelines also apply, see the FAQ (you'd have had a link to that in your welcome email in any case). I'm not listing all that to throw a pile of links your way in an effort to drown you in info by the way - I'm including the lot so that you can see that what we're aiming for here is a site that offers discussion and what in my view is a site where virtually all reasonably expressed opinions are reasonable (and what isn't is in the links, hence I've included them:))

As one of the forum moderators, I'm strongly anti-idiocy. Idiocy is what the charter requests people not to do. I don't give a monkey's fiddle what people's views are as long as they're expressed reasonably (and ideally sincerely). As a forum member I have views on most things and sometimes post them; as a forum moderator I'm essentially issue-neutral and have views on almost nothing except the anti-idiocy thing (and what works best as thread facilitation for forum members).

I'll assume the litmus test is over. If you're familiar with the contents of the charter, there's no need for vibe tests. Reading previous threads is a better vibe indicator in any case. Not that any of us should ignore that the aim should be to raise the standard of discussion and keep it at a good level, while aiming for an element of keeping threads on-topic where possible:) Charter tells all.

Locked on the basis that there isn't a facility for an individual litmus test and this thread is a mess of off-topic tangents. Starting a new thread where there's something different to be discussed is always good. Feel free to restart this thread as a discussion rather than a test of suitability (there's probably a good discussion in there).