Heeding the Warnings of Another Oklahoma City (or Was Nixon a true conservative?)

[classicman2]

Today is the 15th anniversary of the OKC bombing.

Bill Clinton, over the weekend, made the comparison between the anti-government rehetoric of today and that preceeding the OKC bombing 15 years ago.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...rss-topstories

I believe some would argue that the anti-government rhetoric of today is sorely needed. I could understand the anti-government rehetoric preceeding the OKC bombing. I think some of it was definitely justified.

[classicman2]

I don't buy that anti-government rhetoric breeds apathy - just the opposite, IMO. More people become involved in the process. Involvement can bring about change.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by classicman2

I don't buy that anti-government rhetoric breeds apathy - just the opposite, IMO. More people become involved in the process. Involvement can bring about change.

Generally it breeds a "vote the bums out" campaign that fails miserably because everybody wants to keep their own "bum".

[dork]

Originally Posted by Groucho

Generally it breeds a "vote the bums out" campaign that fails miserably because everybody wants to keep their own "bum".

Keep your hands off my "bum"!

[JasonF]

99.999% of people respond to anti-government rhetoric by trying to vote the bums out. A very small minority fly planes into IRS offices. I don't think that the fact that a few people are violent should prevent people from voicing discontent with the government. I do think that speakers should keep in mind the fact that those few people exist when chosing their words.

[wendersfan]

There's a difference between being anti-government because you don't like the government's policy, and being anti-government because you don't think the government is legitimate. In the past decade we've seen far too much of the latter. Whatever you thought of Bush's policies, or whatever you think of Obama's, I hope everyone would agree that a lack of faith in the legitimacy of the government is a very bad thing that possibly presages the breakdown of democracy.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

This is the other "side effect" of "anti-government rhetoric". And it amuses me how NO ONE is "anti-government" until "the other guy" is in office.

And no one was anti-government when Bush was wiretapping American citizens and setting up secret prisons and starting wars with little hard evidence all the while instituting a new entitlement program.

But as soon as a black dude from Chicago (who was born in Kenya, mind you) gets into office, step the fuck off. My PA brethren who are absolutely freaking out because Obama is only moments away from taking their guns away NEED this guy out now before it's too late.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally Posted by CRM114

And no one was anti-government when Bush was wiretapping American citizens and setting up secret prisons and starting wars with little hard evidence all the while instituting a new entitlement program.

I'm really hoping this is one of those "sarcasm-that's-just-hard-to-pick-up-on-over-the-internet" posts and not a genuinely held belief.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel

I'm really hoping this is one of those "sarcasm-that's-just-hard-to-pick-up-on-over-the-internet" posts and not a genuinely held belief.

I think his point is: Bush's policies were terrible. But when Obama adopts the EXACT SAME policies, it's no big deal.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by CRM114

And no one was anti-government when Bush was wiretapping American citizens and setting up secret prisons and starting wars with little hard evidence all the while instituting a new entitlement program.

You must be kidding me.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

I think his point is: Bush's policies were terrible. But when Obama adopts the EXACT SAME policies, it's no big deal.

Exactly.

[maxfisher]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

You must be kidding me.

You're making the mistake of thinking we exist in his world. It's comprised solely of people who love one major party and hate the other. Depending which side of the aisle they fall on, everyone is either an ignorant racist with a serious capacity for violence or an enlightened free-thinker who best understands how others should live.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

Bullshit. Less than 2/3 of all eligible voters voted in the 2004 elections, and those were very high numbers...not quite sure of the numbers in 2008, but they were quite high, too, but nowhere NEAR 99.999%, not even close.

Now, if you re-phrased it like this, it would be accurate, I'd guess:

Fair point. What I should have said was that 99.99% of people who do respond to anti-government rhetoric do so by trying to vote the bums out. There is a significant portion of the population that thinks a tea party is just something you do if you know a 5-year-old girl.

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by wendersfan

There's a difference between being anti-government because you don't like the government's policy, and being anti-government because you don't think the government is legitimate. In the past decade we've seen far too much of the latter. Whatever you thought of Bush's policies, or whatever you think of Obama's, I hope everyone would agree that a lack of faith in the legitimacy of the government is a very bad thing that possibly presages the breakdown of democracy.

Are you referring to how people who align themselves with one party act as if people from the opposite party can't legitimately hold office, or are you referring to people who view every element of our government apparatus to be illegitimate?

[Decadance]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

Are you referring to how people who align themselves with one party act as if people from the opposite party can't legitimately hold office, or are you referring to people who view every element of our government apparatus to be illegitimate?

The later. He is speaking towards the decrease in confidence in the institutions of government, not those who populate it (though that confidence is sometimes linked).

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

I think his point is: Bush's policies were terrible. But when Obama adopts the EXACT SAME policies, it's no big deal.

No, actually my point is the opposite. Conservatives believed Bush's policies were "no big deal" but when Obama dares to attempt to save the economy THEN and only then is it a massive government intrusion. I actually might be sympathetic to the protesters' points if they were protesting the privacy concerns. But they're not.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

You must be kidding me.

Show me the conservative protests to the contrary.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by maxfisher

You're making the mistake of thinking we exist in his world. It's comprised solely of people who love one major party and hate the other. Depending which side of the aisle they fall on, everyone is either an ignorant racist with a serious capacity for violence or an enlightened free-thinker who best understands how others should live.

I'm glad the three of you completely misconstrued my point. We are talking about the conservative movement only (check the name of the thread). But if you must use personal attacks like this to claim superiority, so be it. At least I have reading and topic comprehension on my side.

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Decadance

The later. He is speaking towards the decrease in confidence in the institutions of government, not those who populate it (though that confidence is sometimes linked).

In a sense I'm speaking about both. Many on the left (to generalize a bit) felt that Bush was, as they put it, the 'President-(s)elect', that he was essentially installed into office by a partisan court. Likewise, some on the right feel that Obama isn't a legitimate president because of questions over citizenship. While that number is relatively small, a larger number feel that he is the product of an alien culture and doesn't 'share our values.' Given that Clinton was impeached, we've now had three consecutive presidents whose right to hold office, at a fundamental, constitutional level, not merely an ideological and partisan level, has been seriously questioned by a non-trivial percentage of the electorate. This is not healthy.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Show me the conservative protests to the contrary.

You said "no one." Not "no conservatives."

[CRM114]

Again, thread title and topic people.

[Supermallet]

"Heeding the warnings of another Oklahoma City" does not seem to imply that we are only discussing conservatives.

[CRM114]

OKC was a leftist bombing now? Or was the political motivation of McVeigh as of yet unknown?

Further, the statements by Clinton were drawing OKC and the current anti-government movements - right-wing movements. I thought it was fairly obvious since it was the second sentence of the OP.

[wildcatlh]

So, in other words:

Left-wing protests against the government: Awesome! Excellent! A great thing!
Right-wing protests against the government: Idealogues who are plotting to blow up federal buildings

Do I have you right, CRM114?

[Rockmjd23]

If Clinton really was worried about another OKC, then he should warn the federal government not to repeat the mistakes of Waco and Ruby Ridge.