I’m not trying to pick on Kevin Drum but I really think he’s off base on how he’s examining this refugee issue. At the root of the problem is something I identified in my prior piece on this issue. Kevin is identifying the liberal response as “mockery” when it would be more appropriate to call it “shame.”
This shouldn’t be something that causes semantic difficulty. Think about the difference between mocking your child (e.g., because he’s done badly in school or because he’s said something foolish or because he didn’t perform well in sports) and shaming your child for not doing his best. Presumably, you shame someone you care about because you believe they are capable of doing better. You mock someone because you don’t care about them at all, or because you’re cruel or sadistic.
When it comes to bravery and cowardice, you mock someone because you’ve given up on them and you just want to use them as an example of failure that others should avoid. You shame someone because you want to appeal to something within them that you hope they can summon. A good drill sergeant will do a lot more shaming than mocking, and for good reason.
The second problem with how Drum is looking at this is that he’s thinking about the wrong audience. The shaming isn’t directed at ordinary citizens who are afraid, but at political leaders who are stoking fear and failing to help people have courage. Ordinary citizens don’t get to pass laws or withhold appropriations or credibly threaten to disobey federal immigration and refugee policy. I don’t care if Tom, Dick, Harry or Jane is scared, defiant or indifferent, but I do care that Republicans all over this country are behaving as if they’re petrified and intentionally raising the anxiety level of the people who trust them.
There is a political component to this, though, and it is a lot easier to pretend that you’re acting tough by talking about closing mosques and turning away refugees than it is to explain why the risks are not so great and well worth taking. The appropriate response to this is still to point out that it isn’t tough to cower in fear. It’s actually tough to tolerate a little fear in the interest of doing the right and wise thing.
So, on the first point, the people we’re trying to persuade are really officeholders, not the public at large. And, on the second point, insofar as we’re trying to fight back a little on the public opinion front, the best argument is that the real tough guys are the ones who aren’t chicken littles who act like the sky is falling.
If some people are a little insulted that you’re impugning their intestinal fortitude, that’s just the price we have to pay. I don’t understand, honestly, why Drum is so obsessed with this component of the argument.
I am not sure if I can remember a weaker communications strategy than this “cowards” stuff.
You write:
“If some people are a little insulted that you’re impugning their intestinal fortitude, that’s just the price we have to pay”
This just doesn’t seem to me to make much sense. It amounts to insulting people – it is arrogant, self righteous and just plain self-destructive.
You change people’s opinion by making clear they are being heard and addressing the risk in a reasonable manner.
This is how you address fear – a frequently irrational feeling.
Screaming at people “cowards” just means you don’t care what they think, and you really don’t share their vales.
And they won’t trust you afterwords as a result.
This approach screams of knee jerk liberalism of the worst kind.
But it does show just how absurd the idea of a liberal populism is.
you seem to share this obsession with the feelings of people who don’t agree with you in the first place.
I am not screaming at ordinary citizens, first of all.
And if Ted Cruz wants to discuss the screening process or Mike Pence wants to talk about how to coordinate state intelligence efforts with the federal agencies, or anyone wants a legitimate concern to get a respectful hearing, then I am all for that.
I think the president addressed people’s legitimate fears in a forthright and respectful manner, as Drum dutifully pointed out. But then he starts clutching his pearls that the no one will hear that part of his argument and all they’ll hear is that Obama shamed Ted Cruz and Chris Christie. Well, he shamed two Republican leaders, not regular voters. And they ought to be shamed for all the reasons I’ve already stated.
If we were just yelling coward at everyone who raised a concern, you’d have a point, but that’s not what I have been doing, and I don’t think anyone in a position of responsibility has been doing that either.
And that rarely works out well. You say you are only shaming opinion leaders but using the coward label against those opinion leaders paints a much broader stroke than that. People who are fearful of refugees aren’t going to make the distinction of well “them liberals” are only shaming opinion leaders. They don’t view me in the same derisive manner. No they are going to see the shaming going on and say “them liberals” care more about the safety of a Syrian child than the safety of my child and beyond that they think I am stupid. Screw them.
At some point, good policy needs to be defended. When good policy is being strongly attacked, it needs to be strongly defended. And a solely logic-based defense in response to emotionally laden, lie-filled, illogical appeals to mortal fear and racial and religious bigotry will not cut it.
I agree with the President that accepting Syrian refugees is the right thing to do, morally and strategically. If he doesn’t strongly defend the policy, he won’t be able to carry it out. And appealing to the best traditions of America in response to people who are asking Americans to display their worst instincts is a smart move.
And I’d respond to the assholes who might say “”them liberals” care more about the safety of a Syrian child than the safety of my child” by pointing out to them that if we don’t make sure that the Syrian child is able to escape death at the hands of ISIS radicals, then we’ve become moral monsters. And if we’ve become moral monsters, we help ISIS recruiting.
It obviously strikes a nerve with them. The right loves to throw that term at the left, while hiding behind their automatic weapons.
I think it is a great tactic. Throw in the un-American adjective too. It’s high time we started attacking THEIR supposed strength.
Hey Booman I am in total agreement, my opinion is that the behavior of the GOP can be explain this way. The party needs to update their name from Grand Old Party to Guns Of Pussies party. Moto We have the guns but no Balls.
Theri behavior is a disgrace and helpful to ISIS. ISIS can now point out that the so called great USA is scared of us. They can show clearly how the GOP is quaking in their boots scared of the all powerful ISIS and claim that it is a blessing from above. Another way the Guns Of Pussies party has weakened the USA in the eyes of the world.
Until we can unplug people from right-wing radio and slimy right-wing social media, there is little chance that respecting what they think does anything.
But we can call out these opinion leader for what they are — cowards. It has been obvious from the beginning because they do not want the honest engagement of politics, but they want to win at all costs and with all methods — even, it seems, defunding the Secret Service to hold the President hostage on policy.
In other words, the politicians are going over the edge, the lemmings are running off the cliff.
It’s time to figure out some interventions, because Minnesota nice just doesn’t cut it anymore.
And by the way, there is a eagle Facebook motif calling these folks out as cowards. A number of my Southern Republican friends liked it.
I think we might push on shaming the Republican governors and Congress as cowards as the “bridge too far” of the Reagan revolution.
Because I think the Republicans sense that President Obama might get the Daesh crisis solved before 2017. In eight years, Bush got attacked and tore apart two countries. In eight years, Obama takes down Osama bin Laden, Muammar Gadhafi, and Daesh. Regardless of the wisdom of when and how that got done, in Republican terms Obama is one of the most successful national defense Presidents in history–even with a pile of Bush mess still out there.
I have never seen an opposition party so willfully destruction of American prosperity and national interests.
This is not a time for bipartisan cowering. It is a time for human decency.
Any links to how to get that motif, TH?
Schumer, a coward
Sound. But I respectfully submit it seems we’ve really lost the country for now:
If we’re shaming 53% of the electorate methinks we’re doing it wrong. Republicans can’t believe their luck, it seems; and they may have a point.
I guess I need to tell Democrats to have courage, too.
First of all, who gives a shit what a poll like that looks like in the immediate aftermath of a pretty gruesome terrorist attack?
Secondly, where do these voters live?
I just traveled home from DC today. On the Philly regional rail line I couldn’t find a seat and neither could a young Arab mother who had her two-year old daughter in a stroller. She was dressed in conspicuously modest Arab garb (not a burka) and her daughter was shrieking because she was exhausted and tired of being constrained in the stroller. I calmed the toddler by making friendly faces at her, and she did all the wonderful cute things that all children that age do when they’re thrilled to get attention.
I looked around at all the faces on that train to see if I could detect fear or anger at this woman and her noisy child. I detected none. Instead, people went out of their way to help her get her stroller off the train when she arrived at her stop.
These are our neighbors. We are used to them and we don’t fear them. When I got a taxi home, my driver was undoubtedly a Muslim and the only thing that was different was that I refrained from asking him about himself because I didn’t want to make him uncomfortable. Normally, I like to do the Tom Friedman routine and get their life story, but I figured he probably would worry what I thought so I didn’t trouble him.
This country is better than the Republicans would lead you to believe, but they do need responsible and reassuring leadership.
Everyone needs to chill out, clearly, and Democrats are good at that. All I’m saying is there’s some electoral poison on this issue we need to avoid for everyone’s sake.
The good news is that we’re a year away from the most consequential election to determine policies in this area, so the poison is likely to be diluted by that time. Yes, the primaries are coming right up, but they won’t be as consequential as the general election. There will be a reliably wide gulf between any conceivable nominees from the two Parties.
Take the same kind of regional train…or better yet, a bus…an equivalent distance in a more rural, less inclusive section of the country and the results would likely be different. I think that “53%” thing is actually right about on the money. Maybe a little low. 58%, 60%.
And in higher risk areas…like in a plane? Did you read my post U.S. in panic mode? Some poor Muslim-ish guy was simply reading the news on his smart phone prior to takeoff. Next thing he knew, he and several other brownish-looking people were being marched off the plane and interrogated by Homeboy Security.
It’s gonna get worse, too.
Not better.
The next terrorist attack? All hell’s gonna break loose, and there’s not going to be a damned thing any of us will be able to do about it.
You saw Cruz essentially street-fronting Obama yesterday, right? “Insult me to my face!!!” On the street that translates to “I’ll kick your ass!!!” That’s where it’s heading.
Watch.
Just like the Japanese were rounded up during WWII, before this is over we will see internment camps,
Or worse.
Trump’s “Deportation Force.”
Watch.
AG
There is a bias to the train test. For the most part, bigots don’t take Amtrak. Not since they desegregated seating.
There is an instinct in your posts to reach for the anecdote and reach extraordinarily broad conclusions based on that anecdote.
You bring up the anecdote that a single person was inappropriately accosted on an airplane and ignore the thousands upon thousands of Arab-Americans who are safely using air travel. You fail to recognize that the reason the news item you linked to was news is that it was a somewhat unusual incident. Not unusual as you and I might like, but unusual and worth highlighting and talking about. If America was feeling free to execute much broader oppressions of Arabs and Arab-Americans, then this stuff wouldn’t be news at all.
You seem to recognize this in explaining that “it’s gonna get worse.” Your wild claim that internment camps are around the corner appears in anxious response to the fact that it hasn’t gotten as bad as you think it could.
You think Trump’s call to close mosques will help him win the Presidency, or that Cruz’s bluster is what Americans are looking for in our next leader? Good luck with that.
It is interesting that you have such an extraordinarily poor view of Americans, even in the face of our more frequent decency. I would agree that this decency is inconsistently applied and has big blind spots, but there is not a straight line from drone strikes to internment camps.
You write:
I believe that it is a straight line. As the crow flies. Jim Crow. As the drone flies, too.
You are right, though. it hasn’t gotten as bad as I think it could. Not yet.
My “extraordinarily poor view of Americans?” “Even in the face of our more frequent decency?”
All I have to say is this.
If this is “decency” then give me a pass. Yes, there are decent Americans. Many of them.
Just:
1-Not enough of them
and/or
2-Too many of them are too stupid to realize what has been going on in their name. In the name of “decency.”
Over and out.
AG
P.S. And now the news:
Google news, 4PM EST 11/19/15: “internment.”
And that’s just the 1st page.
It’s on, centerfielddj.
WTFU.
AG
YES! all three- responsible, reassuring and leadership. I’m seeing many of the comments based on how ppl are reacting emotionally [yesterday], not where they’ll be with some leadership. btw I’m not seeing any fear around here, in fact most ppl are talking about other concerns – I assume b/c we’ve been through it all on site and know these things are pretty far away. haven’t even seen any of the xtra security we sometimes get when there’s an alert.
In Red America, Arabs are not their neighbors, and they’re not used to them. Red Americans fear imaginary boogeymen.
Did they also ask those polled what they knew about Syrian refugees in relation to the Paris attack? If 100% were under the impression that the attack was perpetrated in whole or in part by Syrian refugees, then it’s understandable that a majority would oppose taking in refugees. However, as it’s looking very likely that the attackers were French and Belgium nationals, they might change opinions. These terrorists would be like Timothy McVeigh and not like the 9/11 terrorists.
Is that conservative working and middle class voters blame immigration for their loss of prosperity; this is clearly misdirection on the part of the real culprits, Wall Street, K Street and the Chamber of Commerce and largely perpetrated by the media. That this misdirection conveniently aligns with the instinctive prejudices and suspicions of this electoral cohort is not a coincidence.
Ironically it seems we have shared concerns with these folks but entirely different explanations and world views. Our challenge is to patiently promote more practical and sound narratives for them without completely insulting their dignity. Again and again until it sinks in.
…patiently promote more practical and sound narratives for them without completely insulting their dignity. Again and again until it sinks in.
If only that were all it takes. For approximately a year and frequently, a work associate, who is smart (although not as smart as he thinks he is) relished engaging in political debates with the only liberal that he could find, me. I was ever so patient, logical, rational, fact-based, and respectful. Yet, something in these debates eluded me because I’d never encountered it before. I’m only willing to participate in casual/friendly debates if the other person agrees that it will be authentic and fair. To all outside appearances, he’d accepted that condition. Yet, he had so many glib, instant, and not quite on point zingers to some of my arguments that these debates didn’t ever go anywhere like real debates, in my experience, tend to do.
One day I took a shot in the dark and said, “You should stop listening to Rush.” (In the dark for me because I’d never (and still haven’t) listened to Rush and at the time was only somewhat aware of the slick garbage he spouts.) Stopped him cold. Stripped of what I later learned was ditto-head speak, he was no longer even able to begin another political debate with me. Wish I could say that I’d burst his bubble and he began to listen and see the world outside it, but the world outside it was why he’d entered the bubble. His aspirations and self-evaluation exceeded his talents, skills, etc., and professionally and personally, the world had only responded to and rewarded him for the latter. Rush gave him a non-personal space for his anger. Church gave him space to place his issues in the hands of a deity. Maybe Papa Francisco can pierce this man’s bubble, but I couldn’t.
When a Jehovah Witness is on my doorstep, I say, “Thank you but I’m not interested,” and then close the door. They get the hint with the closed door to move along but nothing more.
From Hamilton Nolan’s Gawker piece
…he’s reporting his observations, paraphrasing statements by Republican political leaders on record, and including relevant specific facts. That’s how the Obama quote Drum cites reads / sounds to me. Where Drum gets the idea that anything Obama said was mocking I can’t tell. Did Drum hear something in Obama’s tone maybe that sounded like mocking to him?
And it’s hard to believe that Obama’s statement was meant to shame Republican leaders that are pathologically shameless, and proud of it.
Drum’s take on this doesn’t make sense.
Drum’s take on this doesn’t make sense.
Of course it does. KDrum is a pants-wetting Blue Dog. That explains pretty much everything.
Well, yes, yes he is. I hadn’t forgotten that, but I assumed it was at best impolite to suggest that a former WaMo Political Animal was a DLC acolyte with its own triangulating agenda against traditional liberalism here on Martin’s blog. (He’s in that WaMo seat now. Curious to see if he’ll be any different there.)
Anyway, thank you for reminding about Kevin Drum’s bonafides.
I was about to respond by pointing out that Drum’s first post on this subject was preoccupied with the responses of extremely sarcastic mockery that he was reading on Twitter posts from liberals and didn’t spend much time on Obama. But his more recent post is a brow-stroker about what the President said, when in reality the quotes Drum worries about from the President are merely direct descriptions of what GOP Presidential candidates are saying. The sole tone of mockery comes from his summary sentences: “Now they’re worried about three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.”
It’s true. Drum even implies at the end of his most recent post that these comments from the President might be acceptable, but he and other liberals better be careful about not taking it too far! My response is that our discussion can’t remain entirely on the high-minded, evidence-based level when their side is saying “THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T HAVE A PLAN AND DOESN’T WANT TO PROTECT AMERICANS BECAUSE HE’S AN APPEASER AND A MUSLIM BLAH BLAH BLAH…”.
We’ve got to engage an emotional argument at some point. I’d like to believe that an emotional argument centered on the moral need to help tens of thousands of peaceful Syrians who may die if we don’t provide a place for them would be effective. Unfortunately, when that moral argument is stacked up against “THE SYRIANS ARE BEING SENT HERE TO KILL CHRISTIANS,” I don’t believe that moral argument will persuade most Americans. Pointing out that the Republican leaders are asking us to be scared of three-year-olds is a worthwhile emotional argument.
Its the presentation that is the issue I assume.
Welp, I got into an emotional argument with my Republican cousin on Facebook over this whole cowardice thing. She’s not a wingnut but she’s a former military wife (Air Force officer, keep in mind), and she took offense. I went back at that with emotion, you damn betcha, and her next response looks a lot like retreat to me. Hope I shifted her thinking, just a bit, but probably not. Though she does pay some attention to her liberal cousin since I (gasp!) own guns.
https://www.facebook.com/laura.graf.395/posts/934091783336979
Hmmmmmmmmm…….. rereading that, I did get up a head of steam, eh?
It’s been interesting watching the right wing Xtianists universally unite around blocking Syrian refugees from coming to the U.S. I’ve long said that they have no fucking clue what their savior actually said (either Jesus or Reagan) and are just conservative tribalists.
Part of me wonders how they would reconcile this quote with their current stance:
“Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, `Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
But then these are the same dumbshits who – despite occasionally showing signs of intelligence on various tests – blanks their mind when it comes to tribalism and completely disregards the camel-eye-needle quote (included in 3 of the 4 gospels, in case you missed it) because their tribal leaders are all stinking rich.
Let’s all understand these people are 100% hypocrites. They vote for policies that condemn people to poverty, misery and death but console themselves because they “fight for the unborn” – while also fighting against health care for unborn or recently born. They are often nice people in person, but their tribalist tendencies are what makes it possible for brutal dictators to gain enough support to cause widespread horror.
From this snippet a couple of days ago:
Just noting an exception.
I signed up just to reply to this thread, and here’s probably as good a comment as any to jump onto, because those faith-based groups’ reaction to the fervor is heartening.
I’m struck lately by some of the differences between present day and the first half decade of this century. I remember that after the 9/11 attacks, there was an enormous amount of fear and anger, and that even five years later much of that still existed in and out of US politics.
The preferred tactic for the more level-headed public figures during the immediate aftermath and leading up to the Iraq invasion was to acknowledge the fears of those calling for war and reasonably address the pro-invasion arguments. Later, after we’d invaded, fired the Iraqi army and established a few blocks in Baghdad where US administrators could operate in relative safety, the “debate” back home broadened to ‘fighting terrism’ in general. The preferred tactic for the more level-headed public figures when discussing “enhanced interrogation” was to acknowledge the fears of those calling for torture and reasonably address the pro-Medieval arguments.
I’m pretty sure not one advocate for war or torture was swayed from their position because of the reasonable interlocution of rational partners. And that’s because you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reach through reason.
The preferred tactic is a good and valid one when arguing in good faith with other good faith actors. But someone pushing for “preventive war” (as the Bush Doctrine calls for) -to destroy a foreign power before they develop the capability and intent to harm the US- has already left good faith far behind. Someone pushing for torture -as a means of interrogation or as a message to “them terrists still out there”- does not deserve an empathetic treatment of their fear and anger; their arguments do not merit consideration.
Social opprobrium works. But mostly it works when it’s used by social leaders. I’m heartened, as I said by the reactions of various NGO’s, particularly those normally allied with conservative points of view. And I’m heartened by President Obama’s willingness to shame other public figures talking vile or bigoted nonsense. I’m heartened by the much more agile and powerful internet punditry from the rational universe, something that barely existed fifteen years ago.
But we need to encourage politicians and public figures when they speak forcefully and morally. We need to advocate for more public shaming of cowards. Maybe we can avoid more stains on our national character.
The political problem that Democrats have is figuring a way to take down bigot-in-chief Ted Cruz.
ot:
PHUCK.OUTTA.HERE.
…………………………..
Trump won’t rule out database, special ID for Muslims in US
November 19, 2015, 09:25 am
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump believes that the war on terror will require unprecedented surveillance of America’s Muslims.
“We’re going to have to do thing that we never did before,” he said during a Yahoo interview.
“Some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said.
“Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” he added. “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”
Trump would not rule out warrantless searches in his plans for increased surveillance of the nation’s Muslims, Yahoo reported Thursday.
He also remained open toward registering U.S. Muslims in a database or giving them special identification identifying their faith, the news outlet added.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-i
d-for-muslims
Neat idea, special identification letting the good members of the public know about the “others” in our midst.
Like this?
Maybe a few minor changes to the design… something less starrish and more crescent moonish?
Drum is a bed wetting coward.
NO, those suggesting all this bullshyt DO NOT HAVE A POINT.
THEY NEVER HAVE A GODDAMN POINT.
We’ve got elected officials and Presidential candidates cribbing from the Nazis playbook and folks here are worried about hurt feelings for people calling them on it.
Bedwetting cowards. If the shoe fits wear it. Fuck your feelings.
“The second problem with how Drum is looking at this is that he’s thinking about the wrong audience. The shaming isn’t directed at ordinary citizens who are afraid, but at political leaders who are stoking fear and failing to help people have courage.”
I actually think Kevin Drum has a point here. Whether or not the mockery is intended for ordinary citizens, some of the will take it as directed at them. They will what they feel are reasonable fears and concerns, and they will feel they are being mocked. I think more can be done to educate people, for example about the measures to screen refugees, or to inform people someone like Trump is lying when he talks about hundreds of thousands of refugees.
I also don’t think Republican politicians are exploiting this because they are cowards, or at least not because they’re scared of Isis. They may be scared they’re losing control of their base, and fear is a tool for taking back that control. In other words, I don’t think they’re cowardly bed wetters so much as cynical manipulators, which is arguably worse. But these days it seems the only tool Republican leaders have left for generating support for them is fear.
And, all those talking about the President’s ‘tone’ can kiss my Black Azz.
There was absolutely nothing with the President having NMFTG with these stokers of hatred.
Drum is being a whiny azz bed wetter and should go somewhere and sit down.
OT: water is wet news, but still always good to see the analysis in black and white.
Black borrowers in Richmond are less likely to be approved for home loans and refinancing than white applicants regardless of their income levels, according to a study by fair-housing advocates.
The effect is a continuation of the “redlining” that explicitly denied loans to minorities in the 20th century, according to Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia.
“Certainly lenders and banks tell you money is all the same color and they’re an equal opportunity lender, but when you get down to it, you have individuals who are underwriting loans who have biases,” said Brian Koziol, the nonprofit organization’s director of research and the report’s author.
The group’s study found that between 2010 and 2013, the most recent year for which mortgage data is available, 13.7 percent of white borrowers had loan applications denied while black applicants experienced a 34.6 percent denial rate.
The report found that Hispanic residents also faced higher denial rates than white residents, but overall were granted loans more frequently than black borrowers.
Koziol said that a lenders’ willingness to finance home purchases directly corresponded to a neighborhood’s racial makeup.
The study found that for each percentage point increase in the minority population of a census tract, 12.5 fewer mortgages would be made.
The neighborhoods impacted are the same ones historically excluded for lending through redlining, and more recently, targeted for subprime loans, Koziol said.
While those neighborhoods have disproportionately high poverty rates, a borrower’s income doesn’t account for the difference: The report found a 9.9 point disparity in loan approval rates among black and white low-income applicants and a 27.5 point disparity among black and white upper-income borrowers.
http://www.richmond.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/article_84d2e614-823a-5902-83df-a14ae649eb61.htm
l
It’s just another day at the office for Obama. Remember the Ebola scare and how that was terrible for Democrats? Remember Chris Christie shameful pandering by illegally quarantining someone?
Republicans are really good at coordinated scare campaigns. They can sometimes get a really good media stampede going. Do they have electoral consequences? I’m skeptical.
OT: Virginia Mosque Meeting Gets Ugly: `Every One of You Are Terrorists!’
11:24 am, November 19th, 2015
A presentation on plans for a new mosque near Fredericksburg, Va. ended with a volley of racist rants made by members of the public.
According to WUSA 9, speaker Samer Shalaby was presenting plans for a new mosque the local Muslim community intended to build on property it already owned. The current Islamic Center is too small, as the community has grown steadily in recent years.
That’s when two men in attendance at the public meeting shouted down Shalaby with claims that all Muslims were “evil” and “terrorists.” The speaker said he didn’t expect such hostility.
“It just kept getting worse and worse,” Shalaby said. “People were pointing fingers and waiving arms.”
The first man to make a scene called what Shalaby and local Muslims were doing “evil,” which attracted some positive attention from the crowd. That’s when the second man came forward.
“I’ll do everything in my power to make sure that does not happen. We don’t want it because you are terrorists. Every one of you are terrorists. I don’t care what you say,” he said. “You can smile at me. You can say whatever you want, but every Muslim is a terrorist.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/virginia-mosque-meeting-gets-ugly-every-one-of-you-are-terrorists/
ot: sit your phucking azz down and shut the phuck up.
…………………………..
Chris Matthews: Obama Shouldn’t Be Acting `Snarky’ Towards Republicans
by Josh Feldman | 9:56 pm, November 18th, 2015
Chris Matthews tonight said it doesn’t help forPresident Obama to be “snarky” with Republicans on letting refugees into the United States.
The fight between the White House and Republicans on refugees peaked last night when the president mocked the GOP’s concerns about bringing them in, saying their rhetoric is a “potent recruitment tool” for ISIS and that they’re not as tough as they say if young orphans scare them.
Well, tonight, Matthews said, “I don’t think the president should ever get snarky. Why did he do it there? Why is he making fun of the Republicans
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-obama-shouldnt-be-acting-snarky-towards-republicans/
You want mockery, there’s this from Hamilton Nolan:
http://gawker.com/dumb-hicks-are-americas-greatest-threat-1743373893
I know it’s junk food, and most certainly not constructive, but it made me laugh.
More like “meat and potatoes” than junk food, IMHO.
Appropriate labels, even if insulting and dismissive, for deeply embedded noxious substances/people are effective. Propagandists are, of course, fully aware of the effectiveness of using false/misleading labels, particularly when they are insulting and dismissive.
THIS!!
THIS!!!!
Why I have no patience for bed wetters like Drum.
devin faraci @devincf 14m14 minutes ago
I think it’s important to note the GOP frontrunner is appealing to the base with Nazism. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-i
d-for-muslims#.Vk39FLbjwB4.twitter …
I think your characterization of KDrum is incorrect as well as disagreeing.
We have the hindsight of history but Operation Sealion is almost impossible to pull off. Hitler was not about to land a lot of paratroopers without a follow up invasion and there is no real way that was going to happen.
So in the end, Churchill’s concerns were baseless at the time, though probably reasonable from his PoV.
I have been Black in America longer than 3 days.
And, ANYBODY Black should know that if the start with Muslims….they’ll wind up with US…..
I know it.
Don’t have one iota of doubt in my life.
So, this shyt has to be pushed back in as hard a ‘ TONE’ as can be.
So muthaphuckas can miss me criticizing POTUS about his ‘Tone’, cause he’s been Black in America longer than 3 days too
And why that isn’t glaringly obvious is what bothers me about this.
Its not tough to hide from your fears, but to do the right thing in spite of them. But then the repugnicons are all about the theater component of politics, and looking tough is more important to them than actually being tough.