Are Bush Protestors Morally Equivalent to Obama Protestors

Post Reply New Topic

Wiretapping, torture, illegal wars, and subverting the constitution vs healthcare that won't entirely and outright benefit the insurance goliaths.


Morally, I think they're a smidge different.

Every President has elicited some kind of protest against him.

Protests may differ in the object or the details, but the motive is always pretty much the same. The Outs are complaining about the Ins. So what else is new?

ruveyn

The Supreme Court did say that its Bush v Gore decision would be taken in complete isolation from everything else, which is unprecedented... also the conservative justices who claim to be "states' righters" went ahead with a federal intrusion into a state-run matter in Florida... a 180 turn from their usual philosophy...

About the Hitler matter. When an anonymous person posted a video depicting Bush as Hitler as part of a MoveOn submission, MoveOn was pointed out by name by the Anti-Defamation League as being evil and the ADL added that comparing Bush to Hitler is an act of total evil. When Rush Limbaugh described Obama as Hitler, the ADL waited several days before making a comment that people should not compare their opponents to Hitler... no specific criticism of comparing Obama to Hitler, and no specific criticism of Limbaugh.

I want to also note an incident where people were being deliberately stupid - Nancy Pelosi made a comment about how Republican opponents of Obama were bringing swastikas and pictures of Hitler to the town hall meetings - and they were, and it was clear to all that they were doing this to smear Obama as being another Hitler... but the Republicans played dumb and said that Pelosi was claiming that the Republicans were Nazis because they brought swastikas to the town hall meetings - suggesting that Pelosi said that they were glorifying the Nazis and Hitler. That's just deliberate stupidity so that they can claim to be an innocent victim and to justify their Obama equals Hitler talking points... they kept saying, "Pelosi started it, she said we were Nazis"...

The Constitution is not subverted unless the courts say it is.

ruveyn

To answer the original question using the practical definition...

In general, the anti-Obama people are said to be morally superior. They are "hard-working white Americans" to use Hillary Clinton's comment, they are not dirty hippies and commies and welfare queens and black people who are considered to be morally inferior for much of respectable America.

This is why no police measures are taken against the anti-0bama people whilst the anti-Bush people were subject to taser attacks and mass arrests... the cops certainly seem to believe in the moral superiority of the anti-Obama crowd.

The Anti-Defamation League certainly believes in the moral inferiority of the anti-Bush crowd. All those dirty naive college students and peaceniks who want to destroy America, sell out Israel and cause God to punish America for that... they are all like Rev. Wright, they say, and cry out "God damn America!"

So.....we're expected to believe that the courts will make a fair decision on the horse they picked?

Define "fair". The point is that the courts decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not.

ruveyn

now i am really confused are you telling me that AG is not a baby eating communist nazi, I thought he was.

Yeah, you fall back on such points when it's convenient for you. It still doesn't change that for all the wording, it's still not constitutional...the fact that the constitution is not enforced is another matter.

That'll be addressed soon enough, it would seem.

I stated a fact. It is the job of the courts to determine what is constitutional and what is not.

ruveyn

And judging by recent past performances it is obvious the courts are quite delinquent in the process.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently stated that the constitution does not prohibit against executing innocent people... good thing his was the minority opinion. However, had Bush or someone like him ruled longer his opinion would have been that of the majority.

That is not equivalent to your original assertion, which was that the Constitution is not subverted unless the courts say it is. It is entirely possible for the courts to be wrong (that is, to fail at their job) and thus the Constitution is subverted, the courts do not say so, and the job of the courts is to determine what is constitutional and what is not. No contradiction, just a possibility you neglected to consider. This possibility has cropped up several times in our history, most famously in Plessy vs Ferguson and the Dredd Scott Case.

And also in Bush v Gore.

Yes, but the SCotUS has not yet acknowledged their blatant failing in that case, and are unlikely ever to do so.

Besides court issues, I was a witness to the 2004 election in Ohio, which if you recall was the decisive state that handed Bush his second term. There were a number of very disturbing irregularities that seemed to amount to rather open election fraud. As one example, in my area official-looking signs were placed in and around polling locations with the intent of deceiving Kerry supporters and thus disenfranchising them. Despite being a blatant violation of federal election laws, these signs were left undisturbed by poll workers. And when the results came in there were quite a few counties (especially in the north) reporting completely nonsensical tallies, indicating direct vote-rigging.