The Obama 'resistance': Wingnuttery never sleeps

[babylonsister]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/obama-resistance-wingnuttery-never-s


The Obama 'resistance': Wingnuttery never sleeps
By David Neiwert Friday Dec 26, 2008 9:15am


Steve J. at Radamisto notices that even though Barack Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, Sean Hannity is organizing the wingnuts already into a would-be force to attempt to stop him from enacting "radical" policies:

Since the election, Hannity has described his radio show as the outpost of "the conservative underground," as if a show that's legally on over 500 stations could be underground in any real sense of that word. There is little doubt that there are many conservatives who think America will become a radical country under the Democrats and last night I heard on Mike Gallagher's show of a group that is trying to organize these people - Grassfire. They ask people to "join the resistance" and sign a petition that opposes what they mistakenly think will happen if unopposed.

They hope to have 1,000,000 signatures on the petition by Inauguration Day and right now, they are quite a bit short of that goal ...

Hannity has been embarrassing himself regularly lately by promoting every conspiracy theory in sight about Obama. Expect the pace to pick up as the Inauguration approaches -- and really take off afterward.

Conservatives are expected to oppose Obama, naturally. But only wingnuts will believe every bit of garbage thrown at him and spin it into a massive belief system about the looming oppression of a socialist state, yadda yadda yadda. It probably would happen to any elected Democrat, but it will be even worse for Obama.

[firedupdem]

1. Shameful...Not only do we have legitimate concerns to worry about

these assholes take pride in riling up the unintelligent.

I never ever think violence is the answer but hannity needs a minor ass kicking.

[babylonsister]

2. I had to listen to Limbaugh

en route to lunch today (long story). His bottom line was, anyone who has lost their job since November did so as a direct reaction to PE Obama's impending inauguration and the fear that goes along with that. :crazy:

[firedupdem]

5. Oh boy, he's really a sick person and you have idiots that really

believe his crap. I got stuck in a car with some people just before the election (long story LOL) and I swear I was about to start screaming. The idiotic conversation that just wasn't worth the fight...especially since it was my husbands boss and his wife. Truly scary that people listen to his filth and really believe every word of it.

[Peacetrain]

3. You mean Hannity is using the term "conservative underground"

Wonder where he got that idea from .. what a nimrod he is

[jmowreader]

13. There is an actual Conservative Underground site...

235 people can't be wrong.

[Peacetrain]

23. ~rofl~ no kidding

[rpannier]

4. The term Underground is in reference

to the bunker he's moved into

[Two Americas]

6. it is important to note...

It is important to note that the right wingers are creating a "would-be force" for the purpose of attempting "to stop him from enacting radical policies."

It is the radical policies they oppose. They are opposed to us advocating left wing politics, they are not opposed to Obama himself. In that - suppression of left wing ideas - they have many allies within the Democratic party.

The right wingers win when we abandon left wing policies for the sake of defending the personalities in the Democratic party. The right wingers win when we attack the Left and line up in slavish obedience behind the personalities in the Democratic party.

Here we have a debate between those primarily interested in advocating left wing policies, and those advocating loyalty to and trust in the administration. Many advocating loyalty to and trust in the administration are also promoting conservative ideas.

We are led to believe by some here that it is the left wing critics who are in league with the right wingers, based on the superficial critieria that both are expressing something other than adulation and blind trust in Obama.

But we should look at the purpose - "stopping 'radical' (a code word for left wing) programs."

[RichGirl]

7. And in the REAL WORLD....

Obama is winning over more people everyday. His approval is at 88% which is way more than voted for him. He has the whole world on his side.

Hannity, Limbaugh and their followers are just flies on the ass of humanity....

[Two Americas]

8. not a popularity contest

What a politician uses their popularity for is what counts.

People are not "on Obama's side" they are hoping he will be on their side. Big difference.

[stillcool]

14. "Adulation and blind trust in Obama"

vs. 'left wing policies'? If I see the government we have as far more complex than you do, and disagree with the idea that right wing, or left wing choices are the only ones I have, does that make me an Obama adulator, or one who trusts blindly? Say if I think that there is no way Obama can do one thing to benefit 'we the people', if there is only "half the people" that support such legislation. What does that make me? When exactly did the Democratic Party abandon 'left wing' policies, or better yet when did the Democratic party ever have 'left wing' policies? This sounds like some new religion I'm supposed to believe in. Some fairy tale about the United States, its Government, and its people, that purports the election of one person has the ability to rewrite the history and reality of what my government is, and how it has worked since WWII.

[Two Americas]

16. not sure what you are saying

Not following you here.

[stillcool]

19. I believe that you use a false assumption...

when you assert that 'the debate' is between 'left wing policies' and 'advocating loyalty and trust'. Or that expressing an opinion that could be seen as 'criticism' equates to "adulation and blind trust".

Here we have a debate between those primarily interested in advocating left wing policies, and those advocating loyalty to and trust in the administration. Many advocating loyalty to and trust in the administration are also promoting conservative ideas.

We are led to believe by some here that it is the left wing critics who are in league with the right wingers, based on the superficial critieria that both are expressing something other than adulation and blind trust in Obama.

[Two Americas]

22. there is a split

There is a split. I am biased, of course, as all of us are.

Describe it in a way that you are comfortable with.

Would you not agree that there is a divide between those who think that through the party we will best ultimately achieve the goals, and those who say that by holding fast to principle even if that means criticizing the party or politicians we will best ultimately achieve the goals?

[stillcool]

25. I think there is delusion...

in thinking that anything short of mass involvement by 'we the people' in our government will do a damn thing. As long as the knives are out, slicing and dicing at perceived imperfections the game goes on. The government and the people is the we and they, not the 'split' that so many advocate. It's like a crowd of people watching somebody drowning, but are insistent on their labels approach to life saving techniques, even if they don't have one.

[Two Americas]

27. ?

I'm lost now, sorry.

[stillcool]

29. I don't doubt it..

I didn't use disparaging remarks or make baseless claims against any group or person.

[Two Americas]

32. ok

You "didn't use disparaging remarks or make baseless claims against any group or person."

Not sure how that is relevant.

[stillcool]

33. I think it is the language ..

that so many are fluent in. Remove a few disparaging remarks, and a couple of labels, and what do you have? Any discussion of particular policy that might be relevant to discuss? Any factual items that can be deemed relevant? Any position about anything at all?

Here we have a debate between those primarily interested in advocating left wing policies, and those advocating loyalty to and trust in the administration. Many advocating loyalty to and trust in the administration are also promoting conservative ideas.

We are led to believe by some here that it is the left wing critics who are in league with the right wingers, based on the superficial critieria that both are expressing something other than adulation and blind trust in Obama.

[Two Americas]

34. I don't know what you are talking about

I have hundreds of posts discussing specific policies and taking positions and talking about facts.

[BeFree]

15. You write

The right wingers win when we abandon left wing policies for the sake of defending the personalities in the Democratic party.
The right wingers win when we attack the Left and line up in slavish obedience behind the personalities in the Democratic party.


And that has no basis in fact. NONE.
In the Kerry election there was very little defending of the personality of Kerry.
Strike one.

In the Gore election there was very little defense of the personality of Al.
In fact, in both elections the personalities of the Dem candidates were derided.
Strike two.

Facts are: The right wingers win when we on the left attack the Dem candidates and abandon them.
The personality of bush won him many votes. "Like to have a beer with him"

Strike three. Your out.

[Two Americas]

17. we see this differently

Sorry I have not persuaded you to my view. You have not persuaded me to yours, either.

I say that is is abandoning principle and moving to the right that causes the failures.

You say that it is the leftists who cause the failures.

That is the chronic argument within the party. Regardless of which side each of us takes, can we agree that both points of view are legitimate and deserve to be heard and considered?

[BeFree]

18. Duh!

I quoted what you wrote, and showed clearly that you struck out. That you were wrong.
And you show zero defense of what you wrote!

Except:
Now you write:
I say that is is abandoning principle and moving to the right that causes the failures.

Case in point: Obama has been decried as moving to the right, and guess what, he won.
He won, as in not failed.

And I don't say the leftists caused the failures, except that they abandoned, derided and decried the personalities of the Dem candidates. Which was your strike one: that we suck up to personalities.

Frankly, I can't even believe this conversation has gone this far!

[Two Americas]

24. I haven't started yet

I haven't started defending my point of view yet. I am trying to get some clarity as to what you are talking about.

I say this:

The right wingers win when we abandon left wing politics for the sake of defending the politicians in the Democratic party.

The right wingers win when we attack the Left and line up in slavish obedience behind the politicians in the Democratic party.

You say this:

The right wingers win when we defend the politicians in the Democratic party and the party itself rather than abandoning them for the sake of left wing politics.

The right wingers win when we attack the Democratic party and politicians and line up in slavish obedience behind the ideology of the Left.

Yes?

[BeFree]

26. Wow!!

At first you wrote:
The right wingers win when we abandon left wing policies for the sake of defending the personalities in the Democratic party.
The right wingers win when we attack the Left and line up in slavish obedience behind the personalities in the Democratic party.

Then you wrote this and asked me if that's what you wrote:

The right wingers win when we abandon left wing politics for the sake of defending the politicians in the Democratic party.

The right wingers win when we attack the Left and line up in slavish obedience behind the politicians in the Democratic party.


So, to answer your question: It doesn't seem you even know what you are writing or talking about. And you didn't even quote me correctly. Wow!!!

On edit: And you didn't even quote yourself correctly. When all you had to do was copy and paste!!

[Two Americas]

28. I rewrote it, of course, for clarity and understanding

I rewrote it since you objected to the language I used the first time. I wrote the same idea and tried to be less biased and to see it from your point of view and describe the difference of opinion between us as fairly and objectively as I could.

I did not claim to be directly quoting either you, nor myself. That is why I didn't use quotation marks.

[BeFree]

30. Question

How can you substitute one word (personality) for another totally different word and then honestly claim the idea is the same? How?

Anyway, I didn't object to the language, I objected to the idea of the personality stuff, and I showed how you were way off base with such an idea.

And, to date, you have yet to show me how you didn't strike out. All you've really done is whiffed.

[Two Americas]

31. that is obvious, isn't it?

I originally said that people were loyal to a "personality." That could be seen as derogatory, so I changed it to "politician" so it would be less charged and provocative.

I don't know what you mean by "strike out," since as I said I have yet to answer your question or defend my position. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying first.

You say that you "objected to the idea of the personality stuff" - I removed that word for you. "Politician" I am now saying. That does not change what I meant to say.

[Historic NY]

9. Can we please help these lemmings over the cliff....we need to have a

F with Hannity hour.

[Cha]

10. If hannity and the wingnuts are so worried about

a Democratic President they should have appealed to bush to be a better president(sic) instead of enabling him.

[RandomThoughts]

11. There could be alot of comments on this,

But I think this one is best.

:rofl:

I threw together this video as part alice, part compliment to all the people that discuss and work on the little things that can be done. But mostly, as usual, just for fun.

Never posted it, its a bit militaristic, and the occasion never came up, but for a laugh, I think I could play it now. Yea!!! to DU and all the other 'Undergrounds' that actually work for a better world.


"Shock Cannons standing by for directions" :rofl:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=49062658

[davidpdx]

12. Dangerous people they are

They have already been buying up and stock piling guns. It sounds like some weird end of days prophecy doesn't it?

[leftofthedial]

20. Hannity is a sick joke.

Funny though, that some of us here at DU get called "freeper" or worse because we are screaming for Obama to ENACT some radical policies...and appoint some radical people.

[roseBudd]

21. That is why we need to push back on MSM sites that allow comments...

I adopted my local rag's MSM site and racked up over 60 pages of comments leading up to the election in 1000 character or less increments.

And I have not been able to let up since the election, because the OHPOs, the congregation of the Obama Haters of Perpetual Outrage are very active.