What did Obama mean when he said "'our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation."?

We hang together or we hang separately.

If we fail collectively then individually we are in for a struggle of a lifetime.

If we as a society do not survive, then individually we will not be able to either.

@chris6137, not sure I see what you see in this lofty sentiment. Can it not mean, simply, that all factions—left, right and in-between—need t work together to make this a better country?

@RANGIEBABY It means you just watched Glenn Beck and are trying to start a political war.

@chris6137 ’

Don’t get my hopes up. Socialism would be a dream boat compared to this insanity.

I think it means that any society should be judged – and rightly so IMHO – by how they treat the least of their own.

@Seek_Kolinahr Do you really believe that and if so, why stay here?

It means that we as a society need to care for each other and lift each other up if we are to survive and prosper.

It means that he thinks that individuals must subordinate themselves and their soveignty to the desires of the collective.
Except that there really is no identifiable collective. Where do you find it? How do you reason with it? There is only the federal government.
So what he is saying is “Our individual salvation depends on the political State”.
Same old story.
Not that I believe that the president is actually a despot. He is just another ambitious, self absorbed politician who made it to the top. But certainly every despot in history has said the same thing.

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. An individual’s well-being depends on the well-being of their society as a whole. And vice versa, I’d think.

“Conform or die.” Maybe, “Unite or die.” Probably not, “Live well by your own terms separate of government and corporate influence, and encourage others to do so as well so that we can all grow collectively self-sustainable.”

@missingbite

I’m only here because I can’t afford to leave.

@Seek_Kolinahr Are you actively saving in order to move and if so where would you go? I am really curious where people think is better. I have heard people for years say things like, if Bush is re-elected, I’m leaving the county. Only, they never do. I understand if you can’t afford it, but are you really saving in order to leave or are you just saying you would but don’t really have a desire to?

I take it as a socialistic comment. I know each of us will put our own interpretation on it, as I think it is left open for us to do just that. So mine is, if we all live together equally with equal duties, income, housing, medical etc., then we will be saved.

I think it’s pretty sage advice, although as Rangebaby has said, each of us will put our own interpretation on it. The message I get is, “Either we ALL get our shit together or things will continue to get worse than they already are.” No one party or platform dares address the real problems that face us, they only address the ones that they hope will get their guy re-elected and that buys us absolutely ZERO forward progress. Anybody that can’t see that simply isn’t paying attention.

My question is, when will everyone be big enough, be united enough, be American enough, to strike a compromise and make it work, or should we just sit back and wait for the walls fall in? Personally, I can’t bring myself to hope for the worst.

@missingbite

I dream of making enough money to be able to save enough to leave the country. Right now I’m working on finding somewhere to live after the foreclosure is final.

In my spare time, I research the immigration requirements for various countries (Sweden, Norway, Canada, The Netherlands…) and contemplate how long it would take me to achieve those goals.

Now, if the economy hadn’t crashed, I probably could have done it by now. Too bad it did, and I lost my steady job and my husband’s business failed. I worked in local government – planning and development. He had a flooring company. Turns out construction isn’t good during a recession. But hey, Citibank is still open. Maybe I’ll change my name to Halliburton – so I can get the government to foot me the cash to get the hell out of here.

Just another nice catch phrase. “One for all and all for one.” I’d like to see him being a president though and acting in a leadership capacity. We need a president “way out front” at a time like this. We need a coach and a confident voice. He’s so damn practical and dry. He’s horrible as a public figure. He’s just so damned controlled he’s almost puppet like at times.

Obama’s statement means that we should all follow him down the road to serfdom. Good luck with that comrades!

@Seek_Kolinahr I think that Norfolk Island is accepting immigrants at this time. It looks like a good out of the way place to live and yet is close New Zealand, Australia and My favorite place New Caledonia. I’d love to move to Norfolk Island in my dreams but I know that I’ll never leave the U.S.A.

Remember to vote in the November ejection, oh I mean election.

@RANGIEBABY Why would you have that interpretation of it? If any other president had said it, would you have viewed it the same way?

@SeventhSense – I don’t get what you mean by what you say, ” He’s so damn practical and dry. He’s horrible as a public figure. He’s just so damned controlled he’s almost puppet like at times”; what and why do you feel or think this of President Obama?

@SmoothEmeraldOasis
By controlled I don’t mean he is “controlled” by others anymore then any other president. Any president by nature is only a figurehead and a well groomed political creature. I just think he is too uptight to really let himself relate like a Bill Clinton.

Obama certainly has put some big changes into place. Yet the all too human involvement a leader can have with the people is just not there with Obama. Franklin Delano Roosevelt implemented incredible and effective programs which restored hope to our nation and brought it back from disaster. But at the same time he had a weekly radio program called the Fireside Chat which brought him intimately into the lives of the nation. People really believed he cared. Contrast this with Obama who is wooden, dry and seems quite stunted in his delivery. And for all our differences with the Republicanss over Katrina, he sure as hell seemed to take a hell of a long time to get down to the gulf after the last disaster. Bill would have been there the morning after the explosion kissing babies, going to funerals and eating jambalaya. This is a major part of being a president and one of the most important aspects of the job. You are putting a human face and emotion to the nation’s character.

Don’t get me wrong though. Almost all high ranking politicians are complete phonies because it’s just not possible to please every side but Obama just seems obvious about it. Bill Clinton, while you know he was probably being a little too affable at times seemed to connect in a more human way. I hope that explains.

If this statement makes Obama socialist, then Benjamin Franklin was a socialist… cuz it sounds an awful lot like “Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Leave it to crazy right wingers to take something meant to say how we all need to work together…. into some crazy conspiracy about him trying to turn us into slaves of the government.

@SeventhSense I did not vote for Clinton the first time, but I did for his second term. I thought he was a decent president who understood the public mood and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. He had a tough challenge after the off year elections in his first term and managed to be a pretty good chief executive in spite of it.
I wonder how the current president will fare if his party does not keep a voting majority after the 2010 elections. Not as artfully I suspect.
As you sort of said, they are all reprobates anyway. How is one worse than another in that regard?

@josie If Dems lose either majority Obama won’t fare very well. With Clinton in 96, the Repubs were still willing to find common ground on things and work together. Even if it was just a handful of them in the center.

In the last 10 years the Repubs have drifted so far right, Obama could try to make legislation banning eating babies and there would probably be opposition from some nut jobs on the Right…. I can see it now… “Obama is trying to tell us how to treat our children now!!!”

He’s just paraphrasing something T. Roosevelt said:

“The welfare of any of us depends on the welfare of all of us.”

That’s pretty much the foundation of Progressive politics. It’s in sharp contrast to what conservatives believe, which is stated pretty succinctly by Dick Armey here:

“Europe is governed by a concern for the well-being of the collective. That’s what they care about. What makes us different is we begin with the liberty of the individual. We got it right, and they got it wrong.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08Armey-t.html

Armey is, of course, creating a false dichotomy, but it’s a good talking point for them.

@Seek_Kolinahr Thank you for the response and good luck.

A call for us to conform in obeying his mandates.

Oh, and don’t forget we can only find this salvation through HIM. (and government).

There is a fallacy committed when we talk about “society” or “the collective”. These are abstractions that are used describe a collection of individuals. Individuals are easy to recognize, and their actions are simple to judge.
The collective does not have a particular identifying characteristic or method of action. The only thing you can judge is the overall effect of the actions of the several individuals that comprise the collective. For example, if nobody in society bathes, we might conclude that society smells bad. But society does not smell bad. Only the people who do not bathe actually smell bad.
Therefore, an appeal to subordinate your individual interests to “The Collective” is not possible because there is not an organism with values that transcends the individual’s values. There are only other individuals that want to use force to compel you to behave a certain way-usually in a way that satisfies their own personal ambitions.
Thus, if the collective is going to “behave” a certain way, then the respective individuals must behave a certain way. So no matter what you say, it all gets back to the individual anyhow.
History pretty much shows that unless they are placed in bondage or terrorized, it is unlikely that all individuals are going to act exactly the same way at the same time, and even then, they will not be thinking the same way. So the appeal to obey the desires of “The Collective” are either dangerous, or an exercise in futility.

@josie
Bill was a master politician not unlike LBJ. He worked damn hard but is also a caring person. Slick Willy was a compliment to his skill actually after his opposition was won over by him.
I voted for Obama but I wouldn’t re-elect him nor do I think he will be. He doesn’t know how to play the game. And it is definitely a game.

@SeventhSense Whether or not he gets re-elected, he just accomplished to some degree the entire Democratic agenda since LBJ. In fact he’s made more groundbreaking legislation than any president since AT LEAST Reagan, and really all he did was cut taxes on rich people and doom our nation with sky-rocketing debts.

@tedd
No the debt was hardly his alone. If you inherit a decrepit house upside down in a mortgage and take out a home improvement loan to recoup the investment that’s just makes sense. What’s the alternative? Set the house on fire?

@SeventhSense Right around half of our current national debt was incurred during the Reagan presidency. He cut taxes on the riches 2% of Americans from around 70% (which is still 20% lower than the highest its ever been) to around 30%...But then he failed to cut spending to correspond with the tax cuts…. and the result was our annual deficit skyrocketing by at least 100% every year Reagan was in office, and increasing the national debt by trillions of dollars.

The debt Reagan incurred on our country, is at the moment still larger than the combined debt incurred by Bush and Obama.

@josie Collectives are easy to recognise too. if you can’t you need a broader view point.

@cazzie I’m willing. Show me one. All I see are people. If you can’t see that you need a viewpoint, broad or narrow.

@tedd
Ahh yes Reagan, the great communicator with an IQ of 105
his VP-George H.W. Bush 98
I see a pattern there.

@SeventhSense Theodore Kazinski had a pretty high IQ. That doesn’t always mean much contrary to popular belief.

Anyone can have a high IQ, but if there isn’t a healthy dose of common sense to accompany it, that IQ won’t get you very far.

@Rufus_T_Firefly You can go a long way without good sense, it will just be in a bad direction. Or I should say, in a single direction. It’s sense that tells us when to change direction and the most powerful in intellect or influence get as far as they have because they’ve lacked that sense. “One path,” is the creed of the powerful fools that plague this world more than anything else.

@missingbite I heard him saying that and it gave me thought. I don’t watch Glenn Beck, my husband does. I am somewhat irritated by his voice. As for trying to start a war, ha….Actually trying to start dialogue to see what everyone thinks about our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation.. I thought that was the purpose of this forum.

@augustlan It depends on which president says it. I view statements, based on what I think, that persons general belief system represents to me. And Obama’s general belief system represents to me, a socialistic view of the world.

In democracies the executive branch is responsible for the daily business of a country based on the existing laws. The American President is part of the execute branch.

This does not mean that the President cannot express certain opinions for example to make people think or to spark a discussion. These opinions are not executive orders. We don’t have to agree with them and Barack Obama doesn’t expect this.

The opposite of individualism is not socialism. Solidarity in a society is not socialism. Social justice is not socialism or a socialistic view of the world. Trying to keep predatory capitalism in check is not socialism. The key element of socialism is having no private business ownership.

The world is not black and white. Calling Obama a socialist is a primitive form of mudslinging. We need fresh ideas for our common future not mudslinging.

@mattbrowne I couldn’t have said it better myself.

@mattbrowne You are another of my strictly Platonic European Jelly crushes.

@janbb I don’t feel crushed one little bit. Sorry. @mattbrowne, I am not mudslinging, I am expressing my opinion of what a person represents to me, and I will say it again. I believe Obama has socialistic views of how a country should be. It is my opinion his health care program is the beginning of this. I may not live long enough to see it happen, but I believe the independent insurance companies will be gone by the wayside one day. As will the automobile industry, the small farmer, the small market owner, etc. I have a right to see things the way I see them, as do you.

@missingbite
No that’s true. Except in this case I think it did. And no one would say that Kazinski wasn’t very bright. A criminal mastermind is still a mastermind.

@RANGIEBABY So, are public schools socialism? How about fire departments? Highways?

@RANGIEBABY Tell me why independent insurance companies going away is even a bad thing?

Independent insurance companies have one thing in mind….. PROFIT… They could give two craps about your health or medical conditions. They only pay for your healthcare based on the fact that if they didn’t no one would waste their money on paying too much for their services. If they CAN screw you out of helping you, they WILL screw you out of helping you.

THAT is the problem with our health care, its about MONEY, not about HEALTHCARE. In my opinion, the government SHOULD be in control of the whole damn thing.

@SeventhSense I guess my point in all of this is that you can’t look at just someones intelligence, you also have to look at their life history. You have to look at a lot of things. We need people who are intelligent but they also need a healthy dose of common sense. I hear so many times that this or that person has a high IQ or they went to MIT or whatever. To me, that is not a complete picture in anything. I know quite a few people who have never been to college or even formally tested but I would put their intelligence against any MIT grad.

@tedd That isn’t always the case. Some companies do what you are describing. No all and I would say not even most. My insurance company has bent over backwards to help me. BTW, if I die, they lose my premium. What we need is either one or the other. What we have now is a system that is trying to make it on the free market but also restricted by the government as to what they are allowed to do. Why can’t my insurance company sell out of state?

This is a lot like the airlines everyone loves to hate. We were deregulated years ago, but still controlled by the government. ATC is government controlled, so is safety, taxes are outrages, (about 46 cents on the dollar) and the airlines keep needing help. Either regulate it or not.

Where we on fluther disagree is if we should or not. I am against the government intruding any more into my life. Some want more intrusion as they believe the government can do a better job. I don’t believe they can.

@missingbite You are correct, there are good health insurance companies like that. But the large national ones tend to not be like that at all. Just search for horror stories online, it won’t take you long. Companies like Cigna, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, have entire departments dedicated to getting out of paying for procedures they deem un-necessary (despite the patients doctor saying it is). They will raise rates on sick people to the point that they can’t pay them and have to drop their coverage, simply because they know they cant outright cancel it for them being sick. They will raise EVERYONEs rates, just because they can. Think back and tell me the last time your health insurance rates either went down, or didn’t go up. The actual cost of healthcare (as in doctors and hosptial fees) is decreasing in this country as our systems become that much better and our doctors and facilities all improve… yet our rates keep going up.

They’re not allowed to sell across state lines because you would have the major companies going to a state with low taxes and regulations on the companies and then setting up shop there and muscling all the good insurance companies that can’t afford to compete with them out. Much like you might find most credit card companies are located in North Dakota (maybe its south, i forget). Low regulation, low taxes.

And if you don’t want the government intruding on your life, thats fine. But the setting up of a public health option wouldn’t outlaw private ones. The UK has had public health care for almost a century, and they have a private system that still accounts for around 10% of the total.

@augustlan _So, are public schools socialism? How about fire departments? Highways?- I would say no to all three. The government does not own and control them. School districts are quite different from each other around the country. The state controls them, the tax payer owns them. The Fire Departments are City, County, State and Federal Departments separate from one another.

@tedd Open competition has always been proven to bring down prices. If the government has no competition, they can do as they damn well please, and will.

@tedd That is why @missingbite why can’t insurance companies cross state lines. If they could more competitive, there would be big changes and lowering of costs to get your business. Same as any other business.

I have BCBS. No complaints.

@RANGIEBABY States are still governments, as are counties and cities. Why is it only socialism if it’s the federal government?

@augustlan I’ll give it a shot. From what I remember from Civics classes it’s because that is the way the government is set up. In other words, if state a sets up a socialistic program (Government run health care) that you don’t like you have the option to move. If the Feds set it up, you don’t have that option. That was the founding fathers idea. The people of each state can vote it in or not.

“Bipartisanship” is Obamaspeak for “just fold to our liberal agenda”.

Socialism is a big scary buzz word that conservatives use when they do not like the policies put forth. Expecting a civilized society to care for the least of their own is not socialism, it is doing the right thing.

@SuperMouse Right on – as we used to say!

@SuperMouse The myth that liberals care more about the people is easily busted. Conservatives give on average about 30% more than liberals. And they typically make less. If you would like a source, here you go.

@missingbite show me who and what charities they are giving to and we’ll talk. While it sounds fabulous to claim that conservatives care more about people than liberals based on how much they give to charity, I am not sure that is something to hang your hat on. They may very well be giving to causes whose sole purpose it is to advance their conservative agenda. Conservative agenda = money first, people second.

@SuperMouse While it may be fun to bash Conservatives, I gave you a link. John Stossel did the research and put it out. He did this report while working at 20/20. You may not like it but it is there. Charitable giving is just that. To charities. What you are talking about is not a charity. You are simply wrong. People who want less government redistribution of wealth give more to charities. The research has been done and those are facts.

@SuperMouse I’m feeling charitable so I’ll give you another link here. It gives more detail about the subject.

@missingbite I do not dispute the information in the links you provided. I believe Mr. Stossel and Mr. Will when they say that conservatives give more than liberals. I am not wrong however, to wonder which charities they are giving to and what said charities are doing with the donations.

FYI, I get no pleasure from bashing conservatives, my own father counts Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly among his heroes. That being said, I do not consider wondering which charities they are supporting constitutes “bashing.” I stand and applaud anyone – liberal or conservative – who supports a humanitarian charity such as Kiva, Finca, Habitat for Humanity, or any other well regarded humanitarian charity. I am talking motivation here.

@SuperMouse Please list some charities that don’t support humanitarian needs. Typically that is what a charity does. Help people. Some don’t use the money as wisely as others but they are still for humanitarian purposes.

The giving that we are talking about is not to a PAC.

Your post earlier stated ”Socialism is a big scary buzz word that conservatives use when they do not like the policies put forth. Expecting a civilized society to care for the least of their own is not socialism, it is doing the right thing.” That statement misleads the reader to think that conservatives don’t care about people. Or care less than liberals. That is simply not the truth.

I don’t think it is a stretch to believe that Obama wants a socialistic society. He knows he can’t have it right away, but he can work toward making the US more socialistic.

I believe we need more people giving to good charities and less of or government taxing us for social programs. Charities can do more good with less money than the government. For them, it’s about power.

BTW, your dad sounds like a great guy! And remember, Father knows best!

@missingbite I don’t see where either of these articles claim that the giving is necessarily to some place other than a political action committee, but I take your point that conservatives give to charity.

I don’t think my statement about socialism misleads the reader at all. I think it clearly and concisely states what happens as soon as conservatives want to oppose the government getting involved in anything they believe should be handled in the private sector. I do think that as a rule more conservative thinkers tend to care more about the invisible hand, capital markets, and profits than they care whether or not I – a single mother of three in my 40’s – have health insurance (which by the way I don’t because I don’t make enough to be able to afford it and I make to much to qualify for government assistance.) Call it what you want but I think it is good fiscal policy, even in a capitalist country to provide health insurance – or any other service that helps the lesser of our society – for all.

I do love my old man, in spite of his misguided politics. LOL!

@RANGIEBABY – You have every right to express conservative viewpoints. Free countries wouldn’t work if we just had liberal or conservative or green viewpoints. Pluralism is key. Democracy is about competing ideas and also our challenging of ideas. I have always strongly rejected extreme leftist opinions saying that George W. Bush has a fascist view of the world. Because it’s simply not true. The US is not a totalitarian state and this wasn’t the case when Bush was President.

There are elements in the far-right movement (for example some of the totally dumb tea baggers) which seem to move toward fascism with all the discrimination, intolerance and hate mongering. Bush was never that extreme. I totally disagreed with his Iraq war, but I would never claim he is a fascist. Because it’s simply not true. I would disseminate misinformation.

When you claim that Obama has socialistic views or tell us he is a socialist, this is not about expressing an opinion this is about disseminating misinformation. It’s about defamation, vilification and libel. It’s about mudslinging. It’s about trying to discredit Barack Obama. To destroy him as a person. Such behavior is evil and wrong and unworthy of honest conservatives. So I urge you to reconsider. Don’t go down this dangerous path. Let’s debate conservative and liberal viewpoints. Let’s discuss ideas, for example how can we keep predatory capitalism in check while keeping the very successful model of free market economies which has helped people to live a better live. Let’s take a look at some of the European approaches to health insurance. There is plenty of stuff we can discuss.

@mattbrowne Please don’t call out “some of the totally dumb tea baggers” without at least acknowledging that there are some on the left that are just as bad. By leaving them out it makes it seem to some that this behavior is one sided and doesn’t exist on the left. You and I both know it does.

BTW, I won’t argue that there are not any extremist far right in the Tea Party, but they are the very very small minority. Referring to them as “Tea Baggers” does a disservise to the heartfelt members of the Tea Party. No need for name calling.

The rest of your post I agree with.

Thanks

@missingbite – There is a difference between dumb and bad. But you are right, the extreme left does have some dumb people too and many can also be called bad. I grew up in West Germany and at our university we had a few communist freaks who visited East Germany telling all of us how great and superior East Germany was. These freaks expressed their deep hatred against any people creating or owning a business. They were hate mongers. When I asked them when they planned to resettle they typically looked shocked and came up with excuses like, oh, we are needed here to start a revolution in West Germany. Well, it turned out the East Germans started the revolution getting rid of their socialist leaders.

Again, people with a social consciousness are not socialists. Obama is a liberal, but he doesn’t have any extreme views.

But having bad people on the extreme left doesn’t make it any better to have bad people on the right. We don’t need hate mongers. We don’t need people whose main goal is to destroy other people. We don’t need dissemination of misinformation, defamation, vilification and libel. Some tea baggers have resorted to such destructive moves. We have to expose this to safeguard our free societies.

@mattbrowne Again, I can agree with most of your post. But, when you say ”some tea baggers have resorted to…” do you really want to label everyone involved in the Tea Party as tea baggers. In my opinion, you are defaming the good people in the Tea Party while in the same post condemning a fringe for using misinformation and defamation.

Am I not understanding your post?

@missingbite – Not everyone in the tea bagging movement has resorted to destructive moves. But they all agreed to join a movement with an extremely dumb name. The “Tea Party” misnomer shows the profound and alarming ignorance of this dubious movement.

The name “Tea Party” is of course a reference to the historic Boston Tea Party of 1773, a protest by American colonists against taxation by the British government when the colonists had no representation in the British Parliament.

The US is a democracy and not a colony. The movement should know that politicians who are supporters of fiscal conservatism are actually part of the Senate and House of Representatives. They are a minority these days. The tea baggers haven’t understood democracy at all. They think that they are only represented if the President is a Republican who can rely on a Republican-dominated Senate and House of Representatives.

Barack Obama is not King George III of Great Britain, Ireland and Hanover and ultra-conservative Americans are not his colonists.

The Tea Party misnomer is therefore also an insult to all the honest revolutionaries fighting against the unjust oppression by the British government, many losing their lives during this fight.

@mattbrowne So you think that the Tea Party members are only against Obama? IF that is the case, maybe you should look at the approval ratings of Congress and the Senate these days. It’s at like 11%. Trust me, the Tea Party is not just anti Obama.

I am guessing you have not attended a Tea Party?

@mattbrowne I said “in my opinion” not “he is a socialist”. Why would you accuse me of name calling and you are doing exactly that with the Tea Party?
You seem to have all the answers, you know what his view’s are, and BTW how do you know that for sure when nobody else does?
I have just lost all respect for you as a communicator with a fraction of intelligence when you said When you claim that Obama has socialistic views or tell us he is a socialist, this is not about expressing an opinion this is about disseminating misinformation. It’s about defamation, vilification and libel. It’s about mudslinging. It’s about trying to discredit Barack Obama. To destroy him as a person. Such behavior is evil and wrong and unworthy of honest conservatives. So I urge you to reconsider.
All of that because I said I think he has socialistic views. You have gone beyond the point of no return with that one.
I don’t wish to continue any dialogue with you on any subject. You seem to have an incredible ability to twist my words to suit your fancy. How dare you call me evil or anything else for that matter.
You Mr. mattbrowne are not worth my time to type. good day.

@RANGIEBABY, although he is more than capable of expressing himself on the matter, I feel compelled to point out that @mattbrowne‘s posts are always thought provoking, well written, informed and credible. You seem to be playing a game of semantics when you write him off because he compares your claiming Mr. Obama has “socialistic views” with being a “socialist.” Whether you want to admit it or not, asserting that the president is a socialist is wrong; as wrong as even a bleeding heart liberal like me is willing to say this liberals calling Mr. Bush a fascist. It is easy to toss out accusations and call names, it gets tougher when you are called out on it. All that being said, I do admire your passion; I remember the days when I loathed our president’s policies with equal passion. I also enjoyed the dramatic close to your post.

@missingbite honestly, I believe that if all – or at least a majority – of Tea Party members (I admit it I wanted to write tea baggers there) were as willing to be educated and engage in intelligent debate about the entire system then I would be much more comfortable with the movement as a whole. If you have any stats on a typical active member of the Tea Party I would appreciate a link.

@SuperMouse I can tell you that the people that I know are Tea Party supporters are from all walks of life. Republicans and Democrats. They simply want the government to stop spending so much money.

I won’t argue the education of these members although they are not a bunch of ignorant people. Whether someone likes there policies or even their level of education on a matter, it shouldn’t give a person reason to label them something as derogatory as “Tea Bagger.” All that accomplishes is trying to bully people into not speaking up. If @mattbrowne doesn’t have the decency to argue his points on their merit, he should, frankly, shut up.

I don’t live in Germany where he lives. In this country we can voice opinion and form groups that have opinions. Even if they are wrong.

@SuperMouse so what you are saying, is that my stating * in my opinion, I think Mr. Obama has socialistic views,* gives mattbrowne the right to call me evil and a dishonest conservative. Is that correct? I believe there is a great deal of difference between saying, in my opinion….., and Mr. Obama is a socialist. That is like saying, in my opinion mattbrowne thinks he is important vs. mattbrowne is important. call it what you like, but I did not call Obama a socialist.
I agree with @missingbite Whether someone likes there policies or even their level of education on a matter, it shouldn’t give a person reason to label them something as derogatory as “Tea Bagger.” All that accomplishes is trying to bully people into not speaking up. If @mattbrowne doesn’t have the decency to argue his points on their merit, he should, frankly, shut up.
Just who really, is slinging mud here?

@RANGIEBABY lets take a look at what @mattbrowne actually said: ”When you claim that Obama has socialistic views or tell us he is a socialist, this is not about expressing an opinion this is about disseminating misinformation.” as you can see, he never actually accused you of calling Mr. Obama a socialist. Not only did you miss what @mattbrowne actually said, you took everything he said as a personal insult, that does not work well in a forum like this.

I would tend to agree with @missingbite‘s point about “Tea Bagger”, but having spent time on this forum with @mattbrowne and having a pretty good sense of the guy’s style when it comes to these discussions, I would not be surprised if he was not using that as a put down.

@SuperMouse I would love to know how labeling the group “Tea Baggers” could not be used as a put down. It certainly wasn’t inspiring. It sure wasn’t building a friendly relationship with them. I’m sure @mattbrowne will join back in when he wakes up in Germany.

I too have always liked @mattbrowne‘s input in our discussions. In my opinion he has gone overboard by labeling a group he deems uneducated with a name that is very offensive. He has to know that not all Tea Party supporters are vile racist people. He is much to intelligent to believe that.

I though he had more class than to label people like he did, even if he disagrees with them. It serves no purpose other than making him look foolish.

Argue the points on merit, not name calling.

@RANGIEBABY thank you for the insight, but I still do not happen to believe he was speaking about you specifically. You happen to believe he was. I happen to believe that he was writing of the voices coming from many conservatives insisting on referring to Obama as a socialist.. @mattbrowne is not mean spirited; if after barely a month here and very little interaction with him you have decided he is, that is of course your prerogative. You feel free to take my statement however you want.

@missingbite I am inclined to believe the whole “tea bagger” label is more of an oversight than anything else. Your point is well taken and I will be interested to read what he has to say about his use of the term.

Tea Party members actually started calling themselves ‘teabaggers’. I’d be willing to bet that @mattbrowne, living in Germany, has no clue it could be considered derogatory.

@SuperMouse Being a fair minded person, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I will be anxious to see what he has to say as well.

@augustlan That’s what I thought. Aren’t they the same people that reported Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s “fist bump” as “fisting”?

@missingbite and @RANGIEBABY – I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. This wasn’t my intention and I do apologize for any misunderstandings that may have occurred. I certainly didn’t mean that you personally are evil. Not at all. I was trying to point out that ultra-conservative radicals in the US have started some kind of “political civil war” which involves hate mongering and the creation of conspiracy theories. It also includes telling people that Barack Obama is a socialist which simply isn’t true. I’m very concerned about the well being of the United States as a country. I think everyone should return to a civilized form of political debate. Hating Barack Obama or the Democratic party will not solve anything. The introduction of health insurance for everyone does not turn the US into a communist country. The Tea Party movement is not helping America and there are indeed dangerous elements in it, which includes homophobic polemics for example. I hope that more moderate conservative will stand up and speak out against these tendencies. I do speak out against extreme leftist views and movements as well, see my examples above.

And keep in mind, Europe needs America. And America needs Europe. The world will be a better place if people on both continents care about each other and learn from each other and deal with the challenges in a cooperative way.

Barack Obama is a highly respected person for more than 90% of all Europeans including conservative Europeans. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for a reason. People over here are shocked learning about what’s going on in the US right now. All this excessive unjust criticism. Why? Because they care. And because America is still considered to be a shining beacon of hope. We don’t want to hope destroyed.

I meant: We don’t want this hope destroyed.

Fisting… Teabagging.. a great thread indeed..

@mattbrowne Thank you and I accept your apology. I will try to read your post from an impersonal point of view.
I understand what you are saying, however we here in the US are living every day with uncertainty for our future, for many reasons. There are changes coming and we fear the way of life in the United States, as we have known it will never be again.
It is easy for you to say he is highly respected, he is not changing anything for your way of life.
I don’t know how well you followed Obama throughout his campaign, and heard the things he said and promised. The proof is in what he has done or not done that really counts, not what he says. So far he has not proven himself as an honest person. But then what politician is honest?

@RANGIEBABY what exactly is Obama doing that is changing your way of life? Why do you fear for the “way of life in the United States”? What are you so afraid of? Also, you must see Obama as a pretty powerful guy if you think he is going to be able to run rough-shod over the system of checks and balances this great government has in place.

Out of curiosity, do you see that Bush had a negative impact on our way of life? I know for sure it had a negative impact in my world; because of his policies my cousin has served three tours in Iraq, and my nephew served one. Also because of Bush, my nephew is currently deployed to Afghanistan.

@augustlan Olbermann is very good at spin. That is exactly what he is doing in your clip. When the Tea Party members stated they wanted to tea bag Washington, the intent was to flood DC with actual tea bags to send a message. Janeane Garofolo is the person who got the racist intent started. (I believe)

@mattbrowne I also thank you and accept your apology.

@RANGIEBABY and @missingbite – Thank you both! I was always talking about certain ultra-conservative movements which have the potential to destroy our free societies. There really are people who are praying for Barack Obama’s death, who are claiming that he is a fraud, who are creating various conspiracy theories including the one that he is an illegal immigrant from Africa, and who are calling gay people the scum of the Earth. We have to watch these people very carefully, both liberals and conservatives. We have a common interest here: protection of our democracy.

We also have to keep in mind that these are extraordinary times. The Iraq war based on false information provided by the CIA has created a huge financial deficit. Obama like most politicians in Europe opposed the Iraq war from start because the risks outweighed the benefits. Everyone agreed that Saddam was a criminal. But the war has created more than 100,000 new Al Qaeda terrorists whose crimes are worse than those of Saddam. Bush and Cheney have made our countries less safe because of that. They were helping the recruiters of Al Qaeda. Look at what happened in Afghanistan.

The financial crisis was caused by predatory capitalists above all investment bankers who invented new credit derivatives allowing local banks to lend money to poorly educated or unemployed people because these banks no longer had to care whether they got their money back.

It would be unfair to blame liberal politicians for this mess. It would be unfair to deny poor people in the US health insurance while rich bankers keep their undeserved bonuses unwilling to pay for the mess they have created. People in favor of social justice have to find ways to help people in need.