No, Kent State showed this country was divided over the Vietnam war and the invasion of Cambodia specifically, not over republican vs democrat.
There are some similarities but mostly different.
BET Founder: Stop Attacking The Wealthy
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
No, Kent State showed this country was divided over the Vietnam war and the invasion of Cambodia specifically, not over republican vs democrat.
There are some similarities but mostly different.
OK man, we are arguing over different things. I'm not speaking about Washington or donors but rather the divide among Americans. Class warfare splits this country in two. Of course Goldman Sachs doesn't give a flying f*ck. I never said they did. But to people in this country who have to go to work together, go to school together, go to church together or just live together, it's a serious problem.
I think what you are referencing has another cause....and that cause is politics as usual in this country...our version of a representative republic; it's nomination season and we have a two party duopoly, and you are either with one side, the other, or part of the lunatic fringe (and therefore your ideas don't merit attention). It's been this way my entire life (39 this year). Republicans bad, democrats good....uh oh... democrats bad, republicans good...uh oh, republicans bad, democrats good. Those in the know refer to it as the false left right paradigm. The only discernible difference is that the pendulum is swinging back and forth at a much quicker pace this time around.
I already stated this but I will state it again, the country was divided well before Obama started his rhetoric. If anything, his election did more to divide this country then anything he may have said. If you are old enough to have seen this cycle play out repeatedly, you should be able to grasp that it's nothing more than the latest round in our national wrestling match. In this round, the democrats pretend to care about the poor.
In order to legitimately call something an attack, or dangerous, there has to be a measurable effect. Obama's rhetoric does not qualify. Seriously, you are ascribing too much power to the man.
I'm sorry but you are missing a very important point. Of course this has always gone on, but now we have 24 hour cable news. We have twitter, blogging, Facebook, etc. The cancer is spreading faster then ever. When I grew up I was told, never talk politics or religion to stranger, or family for that matter. And for the most part, that was pretty easy to do. Now however, it's everywhere. you can't avoid it. It's on every cable channel, every Facebook page, every blog. It's now all over the mainstream financial news. Now for the first time, people are FORCED to talk politics whether they want to or not. THAT is the big difference. People who normally would sit together at work and discuss yesterday's football games are now fighting over left/right bullshit. You probably are either unemployed, self-employed or don't spend a lot of time around other people. Because if you did, you would have to notice this. There is no way you could not.
Well stated and very profound.
What Obama is doing is no different from a segregationist era white supremacist politician blaming all problems on minorities. Of course, it is also right out of the marxist playbook, the worthy "us' against the evil "them." It ends with mobs in the streets and firing squads.
I wish we weren't taught apathy but like you, I was always told politics is not considered a polite discussion topic. Screw that. What could be more important than to discuss what our representatives do in our name?
What I will say has changed or is changing is the level of political awareness held by people formerly apathetic about the process.
The people in this country are waking up to their status (that neither party seems to really care about their plight). Social media is also relatively new and has increased discussion about politics, but the divisions were already in place. There are simply more ways to see this on display. Either way, I say again (not to defend him), Obama's rhetoric is not a contributing factor to the divisions in this country. People that hate him will hate him no matter what he says and the same holds true for those who love him.
With respect, you are making unwarranted assumptions that there has to be an immediate effect. Demagoguery poisons the political well, but the effects take a while to manifest.
Is it a stretch to blame Obama for the numerous racial mob attacks that have been occurring? I would say so, but I note the democrats were not shy about blaming Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting. It's the same prinicple. If you are constantly demonizing a group for political purposes, and you are viewed as an iconic figure by your base, don't act surprised if they take your words literally and use them to justify what they may see as street justice.
And let's be honest. Obama hasn;t exactly been front and center denouncing this racial violence. He was quick to attack the republicans for booing that idiot homo soldier, but he supported the union goons in Wisconsin who took over the capital building.
Obama was elected in part because the media brainwashed voters into believing he was some sort of magical healing figure who would take us past petty partisanship and racial divides. Instead, he has been one of the most partisan, racecard playing, divisive and scarily demagogic figures in our history. We can count ourselves lucky if he leaves office without tanks in the streets, latin america-style.
It is in every speech he gives when he uses "they" or "them" and pointing his finger at the figurative antagonist against the "us" he is pandering to. With Obama, he has made it an "us vs them" argument that he still to this day festers in EVERY speech he gives while out on the campaign trail, sorry, out promoting the "jobs bill". Obama was elected to lead all the people of this nation, not just some of them.
If you want to see the effect of Obama's attack on the wealthy and the Wall Street Fat Cat bankers, turn on the news. Those "sit-ins" are a indirect result of Obama's constant attack on the Wall Street crowd.
How long do you think this will remain a "peaceful" protest?
If you want to see the effect of Obama's attack on the wealthy and the Wall Street Fat Cat bankers, turn on the news. Those "sit-ins" are a indirect result of Obama's constant attack on the Wall Street crowd.
How long do you think this will remain a "peaceful" protest?