Are Bush Protestors Morally Equivalent to Obama Protestors

Post Reply New Topic

NOTE: I tried to at "other (explain)", but it didn't go through.

Ignoring the astro-turf (fake grassroots) nature of the anti-Obama protestors, are they morally equivalent to Bush protestors? People who, you know, had a lover incidence of bringing firearms to demonstrations?

Considering it's their side to allow a mounting opposition and merely acquiesce.....i wouldn't call it the same. Demanding the torture of others isn't the same as demanding some decent level of healthcare for all US citizens.

Obviously, the Bush protesters are evil baby-eaters, while the Obama protesters are just protectors of American liberties and freedom from the Communist Nazi menace.

Not nearly....at least from what I see. Or do you trust a protege of Kissinger who has Kissinger's personal seal of approval?


He'll make efforts in the most half-hearted of efforts but he won't make change. He'll instead make compromises that grant what's needed of him to compromise.

Thank you AG for demonstrating yet again that Aspies are indeed severely sarcasm-impaired.

Pro tip: When someone uses terms like "baby-eater" and "Communist Nazi," they are almost always being sarcastic.

Pro-tip: When someone offers you only two options, assume there's a third that they're not mentioning.

Sillyness. Anywho, I'm no pro at reading sarcasm, and even I saw AG's usage of it.

So uh...

Pro-tip: using "pro-tip" is nearly always recieved as insulting, and certainly aggresive, when used on internet forums. Generally speaking, should be avoided, including this one...which is slightly paradoxial...and.../cough

~NS

Pro-tip: when someone is offering three options, assume that there is a fourth that he is not mentioning.

Pro-tip: not all pro-tips are intended as insults.

Pro-tip: these are my first three pro-tips ever.

Pro-tip: this is my fourth one. Boy do I feel powerful now.

Ever thought about the concept that I was ignoring the sarcasm and instead responding to a greater comment on the perceived natured between the "conservatives" and the "liberals"?

Grate reeding comprehenshun skillz.


Again with ignoring the third option. It wasn't simply that I saw or didn't see the sarcasm but rather the third option: I chose to ignore it.

ah, that amusing favourite expression of the neoconservatives, "moral equivalence", which in practice always means that people are morally inferior or superior not because of what they do, but because of who they are. People are born as morally superior, they really mean, these being the master races of so-called Judeo-Christianity...

You have two major areas to compare: the means of protest and the content of protest. I'd say the anti-Obama protesters have failed on both.

First is the means. The low for anti-Bush (anti-war, usually) protesters was disrupting congressional hearings and the like. Such techniques may be morally questionable because they attempt to deny others their free-speech rights. The anti-Obama protesters have taken things much further: intimidating others by bringing guns to town hall meetings and attempting to drown out other citizens and entirely disrupt town hall meetings across the country.

Second is content. I believe there is an urgent need for healthcare reform here in the United States, so I'd tend to give those who want to prevent a morally worse standing. Talk of "death panels" and other outright lies does little to engender my trust for these people, and their strident tone of "Don't tread on me!" (a shameful abuse of Revolutionary slogans) gives me the impression that they are paranoid and in some cases possibly psychotic (like the gun-toters). At least with the protests coming from the Left, you could see reason in their criticisms: the war in Iraq, torture of detainees, illegal wiretapping, and other departures from the American tradition on due process of the law and basic civilized behavior. The Tea Party, the libertarians, and other anti-Obama protesters come across as exceedingly self-centered when they protest so vehemently against giving everyone affordable healthcare, especially when they have no good alternative proposals for universal healthcare.

The part that really aggravates me is that it was considered unpatriotic and un-American to go against the president in a time of war during the Bush years. Protestors were arrested for signs that said "No More War" and for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. Now, apparently, it's just fine to not only be anti-Obama, but to call him Hitler and bring assault rifles to town halls. Aren't we still in a time of war? When did the right suddenly decide that going against the president is patriotic? When did the left suddenly decide that bringing guns to meet the president was OK?

Pardon my French, but the right-wingers need to stop being d*cks and the left-wingers need to prove they have d*cks.

It happens that way because it's all a big puppet show. Russia showed that liberals could be just as hard as our neocons, if not, worse...but they never strike back. It's because it's their job to simply acquiesce and move a little bit.

See that Master_Pedant? Your not allowed to ask questions like that - otherwise what your telling everyone that they're morally inferior to you. Very politically incorrect. Please don't make the same mistake in the future .

(yes to be clear that was steaming sarcasm - I know I have a green tag so better I explain than scare anyone)

I feel that both parties have the right to be heard, because I support free speech and the right to protest.

Are you noticing a pattern? Whichever party is in power at a given time tries to claim that dissent is unpatriotic, perhaps even disloyal. The party out of power will claim that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and their sacred protected right.

That said, the right seems to be even more hypocritical than the left here. But that may just be my bias because I dislike most right-wingers. Certainly there were Hitler comparisons during the Bush years. No assault rifles, as liberals don't tend to be guns-rights advocates. There was definitely talk of impeachment, and I remember one October a bunch of liberals wanted to basically go on strike until the whole Bush administration left (that lasted about a day until they gave up). Of course, the protests on the left seem more reasonable: they were against a President who was not legitimately elected and who got a lot of people killed.