Are all right wingers paranoid?
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 10-22-2008 - 9:10am |
What do you make of the right-wing paranoia? Is it pervasive enough to take seriously? How do you make sense of conservatives concerns about how to take care of their families if Obama becomes president?
As it becomes more and more clear that Obama is likely to win the conservatives are becoming more desperate. They need avenues to vent and a Conspiracy Theory feels that void.
But the whole idea is so implausible. Yet, somehow they are able to rationalize it by believing the conspiracy is real and anyone who doesn’t see it is blind.
Help me out here, is they any way to diplomatically and realistic address this stuff? Are they any conservatives out there who agree that it’s bunk?
>>By Klaus Rohrich Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In October 1962 the film The Manchurian Candidate was released to rave reviews. Directed by John Frankenheimer and starring Frank Sinatra and Lawrence Harvey, the film was about a nefarious plot that involved brainwashing, an assassin with a post-hypnotic trigger and a conspiracy to deliver the US presidency into the hands of foreign enemies whose plan it was to destroy the country from within. Eventually cracks began to appear in the plot and in the end the evildoers met their just rewards.
Fast-forward 46 years into this year’s presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. Out of nowhere Barack Obama appears on the scene full-blown and manages to snatch the democratic nomination from Hilary Clinton, despite his complete lack of experience in both domestic as well as foreign policy. In fact, Barack Obama’s experience is so thin that it isn’t even possible to ascertain exactly what he stands for, given that he voted ‘present’ on over 130 Senate bills.
Yet the mainstream media have embraced Obama as the Messiah, the Chosen One, the One Who Will Bring About Hope and Change. No matter that there is no voting record or even a clear history of Obama’s activities since graduation, save and except that he was a ‘community organizer’. Most candidates for political office including those running for dogcatcher of Gnarled Gulch, Montana face close scrutiny by the electorate and especially the media.
But it appears that no amount of subterfuge and skullduggery with which Barack Obama is associated, is enough to raise any questions about his suitability to hold the highest office in the land. Call me paranoid, but suppose there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to take over the United States, there wouldn’t be a better time to do it than now and it seems that there’s no better candidate to do it than Barack Obama. << cont’d


Pages
It doesn't look like it.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081008/D93M0K5G0.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html
That's an important point to remember.....but I think perhaps the reason it sometimes admittedly DOES get overlooked in practice is that the reverse is not true any longer - i.e.: there are virtually NO liberal Republicans. The very phrase itself - "Liberal Republicans" - sounds odd, like someone's just pronounced something incorrectly, or a non-native speaker is putting things together that really shouldn't go together. Or - even better - like one of those joke-oxymorons like "military intelligence" or "fresh frozen" or "jumbo shrimp" that people try to be funny with. "Liberal Republican" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Not that it HAS to be that way, any more than "Conservative Democrat" has to be. In fact, I personally think that's a major part of what's wrong with our political system today: for the last thirty years at least - and possibly as far back as Goldwater - the conservative movement in this country, and especially the far-right wing of it - has been on a campaign to make itself synonymous with the GOP. Time and time again, we see Republicans who are not sufficiently "pure" either realizing that there's no longer any place for them in the modern GOP (these would be your Lincoln Chaffees and Susan Eisenhowers, though there are many, MANY other examples), or being "shown the door" by party leaders and/or opinion makers, who flat-out told them there wasn't much room for things like doubting the leadership, or (heavens) voting for Obama. These would be your Christopher Buckleys and your (most recently) Colin Powells.
The GOP must do whatever it feels is best, and it would be pretty hypocritical of me to try to offer them advice, since my goal is to BEAT them (though I notice the regularity with which conservatives and Republicans tend to offer Democrats advice). So I'll refrain from saying what I think the GOP should do. Instead, I'll just observe from my own perspective (which is neither conservative nor Republican), that any party which would keep (and celebrate) Rush Limbaugh, but work to reprimand or eliminate Colin Powell and Lincoln Chaffee has got some seriously screwed-up priorities, to my way of thinking. However, it appears that doing exactly that is what's helping propel them to new electoral depths, so I suppose I should be overall happy with it. Except that I'm not, really: if we're going to live in a country in which there are only two truly viable political parties, I'd much prefer if both of them respected the primacy of country over party, of long-term stability over short-term political gain (or even of "sticking it to the other side"), and was willing to deal ALWAYS in good faith, instead of what we have now. Our political system is nearly as desperately farked up as is our economy, and although - again, like the economy - there's plenty of blame to go around for the sorry state of things, a considerable majority of it can be laid at the feet of the GOP drive over the past thirty years or so to win at all costs and to make things like comity, respect and good faith campaigning "quaint" or outmoded political behavior.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Indeed, if one were of a snarky disposition, one might be tempted to say that when conservatives believes those things are "facts," they barely qualify for the IRrational short bus.
This endorsement of McCain is just a continuation of that notion, in my view.
Apparently it WASN'T SENT BACK! The Gaza strip is run by HAMAS! OMG!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html
Edited 10/22/2008 4:18 pm ET by chillychillychilly
FYI:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403
(snip)
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions,
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM
Pages